Iran responded with over 500 ballistic missiles and nearly 2,000 drones, claiming strikes on 27 US military positions across nine countries. The IRGC declared that the Strait of Hormuz was closed — “not one litre of oil” would pass. Tanker traffic fell to near zero. More than 150 ships anchored outside the strait rather than risk transit. Maersk, CMA CGM, and Hapag-Lloyd suspended all sailings. Brent crude crossed $103 a barrel. The International Energy Agency, authorising the release of 400 million stockpiled barrels in the largest such action in its history, described the disruption as “the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market.” Analysts warned of $120 to $150 a barrel if the conflict continued. As of 14 March, Day 14 of the war, no ceasefire is in place.
This escalation did not emerge from nowhere. In the preceding two years, the same system had already been under strain. In late 2023, Houthi missile and drone attacks on Red Sea shipping — framed as solidarity with Gaza — forced major container lines to reroute thousands of miles around the Cape of Good Hope. Insurance premiums quadrupled. Food costs edged upward across markets already battered by inflation. The United States and United Kingdom launched air strikes on Houthi positions inside Yemen.
Meanwhile, Gaza was under a military siege of staggering brutality. Hospitals ran out of fuel for generators. Food and water were systematically restricted. A population of two million people was being destroyed in conditions that humanitarian organisations described as deliberate starvation.
The juxtaposition was worth sitting with then, and it is still more stark now. The world has mobilised militarily and economically over oil supply lines with extraordinary speed and force. The same world proved unable — or unwilling — to halt a siege killing civilians in their tens of thousands. Insurance markets moved with precision. The United Nations Security Council was deadlocked. The contrast is not incidental. It is diagnostic.
These events are not coincidences. They are the anatomy of a system.
The scale of the world’s dependence on fossil fuels is frequently underestimated, even by people who understand climate change. The problem is not simply that most cars and power stations run on oil and gas. The problem is structural: fossil fuels are embedded in nearly every layer of modern production.
The Haber-Bosch process, which synthesises ammonia from atmospheric nitrogen using natural gas as both a feedstock and energy source, is responsible for producing the nitrogen fertilisers that feed roughly half the world’s population. Remove cheap natural gas, and global food production collapses. The connection between fossil fuels and food security is not mediated — it is direct.
Plastics, derived from petroleum and natural gas, saturate modern life in ways most people do not register: food packaging that prevents spoilage and extends shelf life, medical equipment from syringes to IV bags, construction materials, insulation, piping, electronics. Aviation, deep-sea shipping, and heavy freight — the sectors that move people and goods across continents — have no ready substitutes for liquid fuels at the scale currently required. Pharmaceuticals, synthetic textiles, adhesives, and thousands of industrial chemicals trace their origins to oil and gas.
This dependency was not ordained by nature. It was built. Through decades of deliberate investment, subsidy, and infrastructure development, the world was shaped to require fossil fuels at every level of its functioning. When alternative energy technologies emerged, they faced institutional and financial resistance from the industries that had been built around the existing system. The combustion engine did not win because it was the best possible technology. It won because it was the one that suited the interests of the companies and states that financed the twentieth century’s industrial expansion.
That shaping was political. Dependency is power.
After the Second World War, the United States emerged as the dominant global power with a problem: how to sustain that dominance over time. The Marshall Plan offered European allies economic reconstruction in exchange for integration into a US-led order. The Bretton Woods institutions — the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the framework for dollar-denominated international trade — gave Washington structural leverage over the global economy.
But the most important arrangement was quieter and more durable. In 1945, President Franklin Roosevelt met with Saudi King Ibn Saud aboard the USS Quincy in the Suez Canal. The deal struck was not a formal treaty but an enduring strategic understanding: the United States would guarantee the security of the House of Saud in exchange for preferential access to Saudi oil and for the pricing of oil in US dollars.
This arrangement, consolidated and formalised in the aftermath of the 1973 oil shock, created the petrodollar system. Under it, oil is priced and traded globally in US dollars. Any country that needs oil — which is to say, any country with an industrial economy — must first acquire US dollars to buy it. This means permanent, structurally embedded global demand for US currency. It is one of the mechanisms by which the United States has maintained economic dominance even as its share of global manufacturing has declined. The dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency is inseparable from the fact that oil, the world’s most traded commodity, is denominated in it.
The military infrastructure required to sustain this arrangement is enormous. The US Fifth Fleet is permanently based in Bahrain, tasked with securing the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil supply transits daily. The United States maintains military bases across Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan. It has fought multiple large-scale wars — in Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, and through proxies across the region — partly, in all cases, with the stability of the energy-exporting Gulf states as a strategic objective.
In 1980, following the Iranian revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, President Jimmy Carter made this explicit in what became known as the Carter Doctrine. He declared: “Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”
The doctrine has governed US Middle East policy ever since, regardless of which administration is in office. Control of Persian Gulf oil is defined as a US national interest. That interest is enforced militarily. Everyone dependent on oil is, ultimately, dependent on the stability of arrangements the United States has designated as its own.
No feature of US foreign policy generates more confusion among liberal audiences than the unconditional nature of US support for Israel. The support is genuinely unconditional in a way that transcends normal diplomatic calculation: arms transfers continue regardless of Israeli government conduct; vetoes at the UN Security Council have been exercised dozens of times to block resolutions critical of Israeli military action; diplomatic protection has been extended consistently across administrations of both parties and through multiple decades of escalating violence.
The confusion arises from framing the relationship as primarily ideological or domestic-political. Those factors are real. But they are not sufficient to explain a pattern this consistent, this durable, and this costly in terms of US global standing.
The more structurally explanatory account is strategic. Israel is the most militarily capable US ally in a region that is central to global energy security. That capability was demonstrated and valued from the 1960s onward, when Israel served as a counterweight to Arab nationalist movements that threatened Western control of oil-producing states. Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt sought to nationalise the Suez Canal and pursued pan-Arab unity projects that would have concentrated political power over regional oil in Arab hands rather than in those of Western-aligned monarchies. Ba’athist Iraq and Syria represented similar threats to the hierarchies Washington depended on. The Palestine Liberation Organisation posed not only a security problem but a political one: a successful Palestinian national project would have destabilised Jordan and complicated the security arrangements in the entire Levant.
In each case, Israel functioned as a reliable instrument of regional stability as the United States defined stability: the preservation of order congenial to Western energy interests and the suppression of movements that threatened those interests. The relationship was not hidden. It was documented in US National Security Council papers and State Department cables and was explicitly discussed in Israeli strategic planning during the same period.
This analysis does not claim that Israeli policy is directed by Washington or that there is a straightforward command relationship. The two states have their own interests, which sometimes diverge. What the structural account claims is that the pattern of US support — its consistency, its unconditional character, its survival through extraordinary moral costs to US credibility — is most coherently explained by Israel’s role as a militarily powerful, politically reliable, strategically positioned asset in the region the United States has designated as vital.
The assault on Gaza that began in October 2023 and continued through 2025 and 2026 is the most devastating expression of what this arrangement permits. The United States possessed, and possesses, the leverage to constrain Israeli military action. It has not exercised that leverage. The explanation that fits the evidence is not that Washington has been unable to act, but that the calculus has consistently favoured protecting the strategic relationship over responding to the scale of the humanitarian disaster. The logic is geopolitical, not humanitarian.
The argument here is structural, not conspiratorial. No secret cabal is required. What is required is the simple recognition that states act in what they perceive as their interests, that those interests are shaped by existing structures, and that the existing structure of the Middle East has been built around fossil fuel access for three-quarters of a century.
The Houthi disruption revealed something that planners of the global fossil fuel order prefer not to advertise: the system is brittle. The war on Iran has confirmed it at a scale that makes the Red Sea disruption look like a dress rehearsal.
A non-state armed movement in one of the world’s poorest countries, equipped with drones and anti-ship missiles purchased or manufactured at relatively modest cost, managed to disrupt 15% of global trade. The diversion of container shipping around the Cape of Good Hope — adding 5,000 to 8,000 nautical miles to journey times — translated directly into higher costs across global supply chains with a speed and scale that illustrated the extent to which modern economic life runs on just-in-time logistics and thin margins.
This brittleness is not accidental. It is intrinsic to how fossil fuel supply chains are structured. Oil and gas must be physically transported at massive scale across the globe. They move through a small number of critical chokepoints: the Strait of Hormuz, through which flows a significant fraction of global oil and gas exports; the Suez Canal, which shortens the journey between Asian production centres and European markets; the Strait of Malacca, through which much of the oil destined for East Asia transits; the Bab-el-Mandeb, where the Red Sea meets the Indian Ocean and where the Houthi attacks were concentrated.
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz in March 2026 is the most serious activation of this vulnerability in the history of the modern oil system. Roughly a fifth of global oil supply transits the strait daily, along with approximately one-third of global fertiliser trade. With tanker traffic at near zero and the world’s largest shipping lines refusing transit, the disruption runs directly through food security as well as energy security. The IEA’s release of emergency reserves — unprecedented in its scale — has not arrested the price rise. No stockpile can substitute for an ongoing chokepoint closure of indefinite duration.
Control, disruption, or threat to any of these chokepoints can impose enormous costs across the entire global economy. And because fossil fuels cannot be easily stored in large quantities, supply interruptions create immediate and nonlinear price spikes. The volatility is structural. It is inseparable from the physical geography of a system built on moving large volumes of combustible material from where it is extracted to where it is burned.
Renewable energy systems do not share this vulnerability. Sunlight falls on the country that uses it. Wind blows over the turbines that capture it. The energy is generated where it is consumed, or close to it. There are no Straits of Hormuz for solar power. There is no Suez Canal that a drone strike can close to interrupt the supply of wind. The geopolitical chokepoints that make fossil fuel supply chains so susceptible to disruption — and so expensive to protect — simply do not exist in the same way for distributed renewable systems.
The costs of disruption in the Red Sea were not borne equally. The costs of the Hormuz closure will be distributed even more unequally. Shipping insurance and freight costs pass through to importers, and importers pass them to consumers. In wealthy countries with diversified supply chains and social safety nets, the effects are felt as an increment to the cost of living. In lower-income countries in Africa, South Asia, and Latin America — countries with thin currency reserves, high import dependence for food and fuel, and limited fiscal space — the same disruption means rising food prices, fuel shortages, and pressure on foreign exchange reserves. Countries that had no part in creating any of this, no vote in the decisions that produced the strikes on Iran, absorb real and severe costs.
This is not an exception to the way the fossil fuel system works. It is how the system works.
There is a pattern in how the costs and benefits of the global fossil fuel order are distributed, and it is worth naming directly.
The United States — the principal architect and primary beneficiary of petrodollar arrangements, the state that has spent trillions maintaining the military infrastructure that keeps Gulf oil flowing — experiences the geopolitical disruptions it generates at a remove. The Fifth Fleet is in Bahrain, not Baltimore. In the first two weeks of the Iran war, eleven US soldiers were killed and Iranian casualties exceeded 1,400 dead and 18,000 wounded — a ratio that will widen further as the conflict continues. The air strikes on Yemen killed Yemeni people. The siege of Gaza was conducted by Israeli forces using weapons manufactured in the United States. The strikes on Iran are killing Iranians. The pattern does not change.
The economic costs of disruption are externalised through global market mechanisms to consumers in countries that have no formal relationship with any of these conflicts. The populations of the Sahel, of South Asia, of small island nations — people who have contributed minimally to the carbon emissions driving the climate crisis, who played no role in the construction of the petrodollar system, who have no voice in US foreign policy decisions — absorb fuel price shocks and food inflation generated by conflicts thousands of miles away and driven by interests that are not theirs.
More than 800 million people globally lack access to electricity. Billions more rely on expensive, imported fossil fuels for cooking, heating, and transport, making them immediately vulnerable to the price volatility the current system generates. Energy poverty is not a natural condition. It is, in part, a product of a global energy system designed to generate profits for the companies that extract and distribute fossil fuels and geopolitical leverage for the states that control their transit.
The ability to externalise costs while retaining benefits is not a by-product of empire. It is the definition of empire. What makes a power structure imperial is precisely the asymmetry: the centre extracts the gains and exports the costs to the periphery. The fossil fuel system and the imperial system are not two separate problems that happen to overlap. They are the same structure, visible from different angles.
This asymmetry also manifests in the climate crisis itself. The countries that industrialised earliest and emitted the most are the ones with the resources to build sea walls, relocate populations, and adapt infrastructure. The countries that industrialised least, which are predominantly in the Global South, face the most severe climate impacts with the fewest resources to respond. The extraction zones — the regions whose land and labour have been mined for the raw materials of the global economy — are, in many cases, the same regions facing the most acute climate disruption. The two systems of harm reinforce each other.
The critique of green capitalism has been developed in some depth elsewhere on this site, and the argument need not be rehearsed in full here. The short version is this: replacing fossil fuel extraction with mineral extraction for batteries and solar panels, while leaving ownership, control, and the distribution of benefits unchanged, is not a transition — it is a rebranding. The problem is not the source of the energy. The problem is the structure of power.
What the analysis of petro-imperialism adds to that argument is a clearer picture of what is at stake in the alternative.
Energy sovereignty — the ability of communities and nations to control their own energy production and distribution — is not merely an environmental goal. It is a political one. A country that generates its electricity from domestic renewable sources is not dependent on dollar-denominated global oil markets. It is not vulnerable to the price spikes that follow from conflicts in the Middle East or shipping disruptions in the Red Sea. It cannot be sanctioned into energy poverty by great powers managing the global fuel supply. Its economy is not structurally subordinated to the financial arrangements that keep petrodollar recycling working.
Distributed renewable energy systems — solar panels, wind turbines, community battery storage — do not require global supply chains of the kind that make fossil fuel economies so susceptible to geopolitical disruption. They do require raw materials, and those materials carry their own extractive politics, as the analysis of cobalt and lithium makes clear. But the operational geography of renewable energy is fundamentally different from that of fossil fuels. Once built, a solar installation generates energy from a local resource. It does not require a shipping route.
This is why energy sovereignty faces structural opposition from the powers that benefit from fossil fuel dependency. A world that has transitioned to distributed renewable energy is a world in which the petrodollar system loses its foundation. It is a world in which the strategic rationale for US military presence in the Gulf — the protection of energy supply lines — diminishes. It is a world in which small and middle-income countries have more economic autonomy, because their energy costs are no longer set by global commodity markets and the geopolitical arrangements that govern them.
None of this makes the transition automatic or sufficient. Solar panels built with minerals extracted under colonial conditions are not liberation. Public ownership matters. Democratic control of energy infrastructure matters. The question of who builds, owns, and benefits from energy systems is political, not technical.
Energy cooperatives across Europe and South America offer models for how distributed energy production can be governed in ways that return benefits to communities rather than shareholders. Public utilities with democratic accountability can build energy infrastructure for public benefit rather than profit. Degrowth frameworks — which insist that the goal is not to replace fossil fuel consumption with renewable consumption at the same scale, but to reduce the throughput of the economy overall — offer a political horizon that goes beyond the technical substitution of one energy source for another.
The renewable energy transition, if it is to be more than a reshuffling of extractive arrangements, must be organised around the principle that energy is a commons — a resource whose benefits should be shared and whose governance should be democratic.
Consider where we are on Day 14 of the war on Iran. The Strait of Hormuz is closed. Oil is above $100 a barrel and rising. One-third of global fertiliser trade cannot move. Hundreds of ships sit at anchor. Iran’s population absorbs casualties at a rate many times that of the forces striking it. Governments in the Global South — carrying no responsibility for any decision that produced this conflict — are watching fuel and food costs spike with no fiscal capacity to absorb the blow.
These images are not disconnected. The siege of Gaza was sustained by US diplomatic and military support rooted in decades of strategic calculation about Israel’s role in maintaining a regional order built around fossil fuel access. The Houthi attacks were a response to that siege. The war on Iran is, in part, a consequence of the same chain: of the logic that the Persian Gulf must remain under US-managed security arrangements at any cost, that regional powers which threaten those arrangements must be suppressed, and that the bill for doing so is paid not by Washington but by the world. The price spikes that follow are absorbed by consumers in countries that played no part in creating any of this.
The world built on oil is a world that can be destabilised by whoever controls oil — and a world in which the attempt to maintain that control can itself become the source of the destabilisation. That is not a geopolitical accident. It is the architecture of empire — built deliberately, maintained militarily, and now, visibly, beginning to consume itself at enormous human cost.
Real climate action is inseparable from anti-imperialism. This is not a rhetorical flourish. It is a structural claim. The fossil fuel system and the imperial system are the same system, and the communities bearing the highest costs of both are, to a very significant degree, the same communities: those whose land was colonised for extraction, whose labour built the infrastructure of the global economy, and who now absorb the shocks generated by conflicts they did not start over resources they do not control.
You cannot dismantle one without confronting the other. A just transition means energy sovereignty, democratic control of infrastructure, and reparative finance from the countries that built the fossil fuel economy to the countries that paid its costs. It means naming the system — petro-empire — for what it is, and organising against it with the seriousness that the name demands.
]]>Walk through the supply chains and the illusion unravels. New mines are sunk into old colonial frontiers. Forests are converted into carbon credits. Wealthy nations approve new drilling while telling others to tighten their belts. The climate crisis becomes a growth market. What is sold as transformation is the same extractive order, repainted in eco-friendly colours.
Green capitalism is slow violence: it works through distance and disguise, where branding sanitises harm and abstraction shields exploitation. The structure beneath remains intact.
The mainstream story offers change without disruption: markets will innovate, growth will somehow detach from resource use, consumers will make enlightened choices, and entrepreneurs will deliver breakthroughs that smooth the path ahead. It is a story crafted to reassure those invested in the status quo because it promises that the fundamentals will remain untouched.
This story obscures the root of the crisis: an economic system driven by endless extraction, endless production, and endless waste. No marketing strategy can hide the material reality that global consumption already exceeds ecological limits. The narrative avoids the essential questions: who directs the transition, and who carries its burdens?
The shift towards renewable energy and electrification has triggered a global race for minerals with deep historical echoes. Cobalt, lithium, nickel, copper, and rare earths now sit at the heart of “clean tech”. The countries that consume the most demand stability whilst the regions that supply the minerals absorb instability and harm.
In mineral-rich territories across Africa, Latin America, and Asia, extraction reshapes land and life. Communities face polluted rivers, fragile jobs, land dispossession, and heavy policing around project sites. Workers, often with limited alternatives, enter dangerous shafts or labour in open pits to meet distant demand for green products. The devices marketed as ethical carry the consequences of this extraction.
This contradiction is not incidental. It is structural. A system premised on perpetual expansion always seeks new frontiers. When one resource is depleted or regulated, another is opened. The green transition shifts pressure from fossil reserves to mineral reserves without altering the growth-driven logic beneath.
Corporate enthusiasm for climate action is not rooted in moral awakening; it is a strategy to maintain power. ESG reports, sustainability audits, and net-zero pledges create a sense of progress that leaves ownership untouched. They deliver visibility rather than redistribution, reassurance rather than transformation.
Technological fixes serve the same function. Carbon capture is marketed as a lifeline for continued drilling. Offsets allow major emitters to claim progress without reducing emissions. Hydrogen labelled as clean keeps gas corridors alive. These fixes are deployed to extend extraction, not reduce its centrality.
Delay becomes an asset: every year of stalled action protects profits for industries driving the crisis. Financial institutions and resource-dependent states support this delay because their influence depends on the existing structure, making the transition a debate about devices rather than power.
Offsets and carbon markets reveal the colonial core of the green economy. Forests in the Amazon, the Congo Basin, and Southeast Asia are transformed into carbon stores for companies and governments in the North. Local communities experience increased surveillance, restricted access, and diminished control over their territories. Debt-pressured governments sign deals that treat land as a climate ledger instead of a living place.
Offsets rarely cut emissions; instead, they relocate responsibility, allowing wealthy countries to continue emitting whilst poorer regions absorb carbon. The people living on the land lose agency whilst corporations purchase the right to delay decarbonisation.
This is not climate justice—it is green colonialism.
Green capitalism depends on the belief that the economy can grow indefinitely whilst material throughput declines. This belief has no grounding in physical reality: efficiency gains are undermined by increased consumption, renewable infrastructure requires vast quantities of minerals, land, and energy, and multiple planetary boundaries have already been breached. Growth becomes an unquestioned doctrine, even as it accelerates ecological collapse.
A system built on endless expansion cannot remain within ecological limits. It can only displace harm, conceal it, or rationalise it as necessary.
A liveable future cannot emerge from corporate branding; it requires a shift in power. A genuine transition means bringing energy, water, land, and major industries under democratic control, ensuring production prioritises human need rather than profit, and ecological limits are treated as binding. Communities affected by extraction must receive restitution and long-term repair.
Reducing material demand is essential: durable design, repair culture, recycling, and extended product life reduce pressure on extraction zones whilst planned obsolescence is phased out and consumption in wealthier regions contracts.
Value must remain near where it is generated: raw materials should not be exported only to return as expensive components. Regional refining, manufacturing, and recycling shift power away from multinational supply chains and towards producing societies.
Markets cannot deliver this; democratic planning of energy systems and public infrastructure is essential, with decisions following social and ecological priorities rather than investor expectations.
The climate crisis is not waiting for an inventor to save it; it is shaped by a contest between extractive power and the possibility of a habitable world. Green capitalism promises change that leaves hierarchy untouched, offering a cleaner version of the same system and suggesting that the forces driving collapse can engineer their own solution.
The alternative is clearer: democratic ownership, ecological repair, and collective sufficiency. A transition that refuses to treat people and ecosystems as expendable, that places life before profit.
The world does not need a greener capitalism. It needs a politics capable of ending the violence hidden behind the green veneer.
]]>But socialism is not a war on everyday life. It is a challenge to economic domination.
Much of this confusion comes from deliberately blurring two different concepts of property. Without that distinction, any discussion of socialism collapses into fearmongering. This article sets out to clear the fog. Here are the most common misconceptions about socialism, and what the theory actually says.
This is the most widespread misconception, and also the easiest to debunk.
Personal property includes the things people use to live their lives:
No socialist tradition proposes abolishing these. They are tied to personal use, not exploitation. They do not generate profit from someone else’s labour.
Socialists critique private property in the means of production, meaning:
These are structures that shape everyone’s survival. When they are controlled privately, a minority gains the power to decide how society works. This is the issue.
Your personal belongings are not.
Another myth. Socialism is not synonymous with state centralisation.
The aim is democratic control, not bureaucratic domination. Socialism expands democracy into the economic sphere rather than replacing one elite with another.
Ownership models vary. What matters is that essential systems are governed for public benefit rather than private accumulation.
This myth rests on a narrow idea of innovation: that progress happens only when wealthy individuals chase personal profit.
But almost all foundational advancements were publicly funded or collectively driven:
Innovation thrives where risk is socialised and knowledge is shared.
A socialist approach doesn’t eliminate innovation. It frees innovation from the need to serve quarterly profits.
Here we arrive at another deliberate distortion.
Under capitalism, people often work despite the system, not because of it. Many of the world’s most critical jobs — healthcare, education, caregiving, agriculture — are undervalued precisely because the market doesn’t reward social importance.
Socialism aims to align reward with contribution, not speculation.
Socialism does not seek to make everyone identical.
It seeks to ensure:
This is not the same as equal outcomes. It is the creation of conditions where people can live free from structural coercion: poverty, exploitation, hunger, and market dependency for survival.
No. Socialism draws a line between capital that dominates society and small-scale enterprises that serve local needs.
A bakery, a repair shop, a small farm, a studio, a tech freelancer — these are not the targets of socialist critique. They are part of a healthy pluralistic economy.
What socialism challenges is:
The issue is concentrated power, not the existence of small businesses.
Under capitalism, you are “free” only to the extent that you can pay for your needs. Socialism expands actual choices by guaranteeing housing, healthcare, education, food security, energy and water, transport, and time for rest, family, and participation in public life.
Meanwhile, some of the most inefficient systems on earth are private:
Efficiency is not a function of ownership. It is a function of incentives.
This argument confuses authoritarian states with socialist principles.
Authoritarianism can exist under any system:
Socialism at its core is about democratic control over the economy. It challenges unaccountable power rather than reinforcing it.
If anything, capitalism concentrates power in private hands with little public oversight. Socialism distributes it.
Misconceptions are not random. They survive because they serve those who benefit from the current system.
If people believe socialism means:
Then they never get to ask the real questions:
Myths deflect attention away from structural critique toward lifestyle fearmongering.
Socialism is not an attack on individuality, personal freedom, or everyday possessions. It is a challenge to systems that treat human beings and ecosystems as raw material for profit. It argues that democracy must reach the places where decisions about survival are made: energy, land, labour, housing, water, and the infrastructures that shape daily life.
It does not seek to control your life. It seeks to free your life from the forces that already control it.
Socialism is a politics built for human dignity, collective freedom, and ecological survival — a politics for people and planet.
]]>This is not a failure of drafting, nor a technical hiccup. It is a political decision shaped by the power of an industry that has learned how to write the rules whilst pretending to follow them.
The number itself tells a story. Nearly fifteen hundred lobbyists linked to oil, gas, and coal entered the negotiating space. Some arrived as corporate delegates. Others were folded into business associations. Many more came under national badges issued by states aligned with fossil interests. They moved through meeting rooms, side events, receptions, and closed-door consultations. They were not there to observe. They were there to influence.
The record presence was justified through the usual language of inclusivity and dialogue. In practice it meant that the corporations responsible for accelerating climate breakdown had more access to decision-makers than the communities living on its frontlines.
This reflects how deeply integrated fossil firms remain in the economies and political strategies of the wealthiest nations. Many governments still treat them as indispensable partners in energy security and industrial growth. That relationship turns climate conferences into sites where public policy and private power merge.
The fight inside COP30 was over a few words: whether the world would commit to phasing out fossil fuels; whether there would be a timeline; whether accountability would be real or symbolic. Science is clear. A rapid decline in fossil fuel use is the only path to a stable climate.
But the fossil lobby and aligned states pushed to dilute the text. They promoted softer language about transitions, pathways, and technologies that might theoretically clean up emissions whilst allowing extraction to continue. They argued for terms like phase down. They pushed for references to abated fuels. They framed carbon capture and offsets as credible solutions. The final document absorbed this pressure, offering a broad call to transition without defining what must actually end.
The outcome protects the industry. It weakens the science. It leaves vulnerable regions exposed to deeper danger.
The UNFCCC process operates on consensus. Any country can block ambitious language. Petrostates wield that rule as a shield, and governments dependent on fossil rents defend it. Corporations understand these dynamics and work through them effectively. The result is predictable. Negotiations drift toward the position of the most obstructive actors.
The process still assumes a shared interest in preserving a liveable climate. Reality cuts against that assumption. Fossil companies profit from delay. States tied to extraction seek to extend it. Wealthy nations rely on fossil industries for geopolitical leverage, investment, and industrial capacity. These forces do not align with a rapid phase-out, and the structure of COP allows them to shape outcomes without appearing as spoilers.
For the South, the avoidance of a phase-out is not a symbolic issue. It is a material one. Higher temperatures, shifting rainfall patterns, stronger storms, and rising seas are already reducing food security, damaging infrastructure, and eroding livelihoods. Adaptation finance remains far below what is required. Loss and damage pledges remain small compared to the scale of destruction.
When COP30 refused to name fossil fuels, it signalled that suffering in the South is an acceptable cost to the global system. It signalled that the interests of corporations and fossil states take precedence over the right of entire regions to survive.
The hypocrisy is sharp. The same countries that demand climate discipline from the South continue to permit new drilling at home. The same firms that speak about net zero plan decades of new extraction. The extraction zones of the South remain central to their strategies. This is climate injustice in its clearest form.
The fossil lobby does not deny the crisis; it reframes it. It promotes carbon capture as a rescue tool despite limited scalability, brands hydrogen as clean even when produced from gas, champions offsets to justify continued pollution, and supports speculative future technologies that do not yet exist at scale. All of these narratives serve to protect extraction.
Inside COP30 these ideas shaped discussions and side events. They offered a polished cover for inaction. They allowed governments to claim ambition while avoiding the substance of transition. The industry has learned that it does not need denial. It only needs delay.
The failures of COP30 reflect deeper structural limits:
A process built around voluntary commitments and market incentives cannot deliver what science demands. It cannot deliver what justice demands either. Without a shift in power, the negotiations will keep producing documents that avoid naming the forces driving collapse.
A liveable future demands steps that COP30 could not even debate:
These measures confront the economic logic that links fossil expansion, inequality, and ecological destruction. They replace corporate influence with democratic power.
If COP30 showed anything, it is that people cannot rely on captured institutions to deliver a just transition. Every major advance in social and ecological rights has come from organised movements, not from elite diplomacy. The forces capable of ending the fossil era are unions, communities resisting extraction, Indigenous defenders, youth movements, scientists, and democratic institutions that treat energy as a public good.
The summit in the Amazon revealed something important. The future will not be negotiated in rooms crowded with lobbyists. It will be shaped by people who refuse to let their lands, waters, and futures be sacrificed for profit.
The work ahead is collective, grounded in life rather than extraction. It will shape a world that no summit captured by fossil power can imagine or contain.
]]>“Africa is a paradox which illustrates and highlights neocolonialism. Her earth is rich, yet the products that come from above and below the soil enrich not Africans but others.” — Kwame Nkrumah, Neo‑Colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism (1965)
A child slides a plastic basin down a muddy slope to the mouth of a mine shaft. A man lifts the basin, shovels a fistful of wet ore into it, and passes it along. The tunnel shudders. Someone shouts. No sirens sound. No inspector appears. The ore will be sold to a trader who moves it through a chain of middlemen before it reaches a refinery on another continent. Somewhere else an electric car glides silently past a showroom, its owner proud of a small climate virtue. The battery inside that car carries a human story that rarely makes it into press statements.
This kind of scene is common in the copper-cobalt belt of southeastern Congo. It is raw, brutal, and ordinary. People work because alternatives have been stripped from them, and the global economy turns their labour into a resource for others. The promised “green” future looks different when you follow the metals that make it possible. If the world is serious about justice, it must stop pretending that the transition is only a technical challenge. It is a political one.
Cobalt plays a stabilising role in many battery chemistries. It helps prevent overheating, improves cycle life, and supports higher energy density in professional and consumer applications. That is why the global push for electrification, from smartphones to grid storage, has made cobalt strategically important.
The Democratic Republic of Congo sits at the centre of this mineral geography. The region’s ores are cheaper to access than many alternatives and have been integrated into global supply chains for decades. This is why control over cobalt is not simply an industrial question. It is a matter of geopolitical leverage, investment strategy, and development policy.
But geography alone does not determine who benefits. Patterns of ownership, legal frameworks, corporate practice, and state capacity determine where value accrues. In the current model, most of the value leaves the country long before the final battery is assembled.
Mining shaped Congo in the colonial era. Belgian authorities and companies like Union Minière du Haut-Katanga built enclaves for extraction, built rail lines and ports to move ore to Europe, and organised labour through coercive structures. The Force Publique and other instruments of colonial rule enforced labour regimes that prioritised the needs of the metropolitan economy.
Those institutions did not simply vanish at independence. The legal templates for concessions, the physical export routes, and the habit of prioritising exports over local development persisted. New national elites and foreign investors adopted and adapted those systems. Contracts often mirrored old-style concessions: long-term exclusive rights, tax holidays, and a governance model that favoured capital mobility and profit repatriation.
The result is a political economy in which mining regions remain structurally peripheral. Infrastructure tends to move minerals out, not to connect regional markets. Public services remain thin near many concessions, and local people frequently do not control the land under their feet. That historical continuity explains why reforming a practice now looks like a battle over centuries of built power.
It is important to separate two common falsehoods. First, that industrial mining is inherently humane, and second, that artisanal mining is simply quaint or criminal. The truth is more complex and more disturbing.
Artisanal and small-scale miners extract ore using simple tools in tunnels that can collapse without warning. They live with the constant risk of injury, contaminated water, and chronic respiratory disease from dust. Children work in these sites in a way that violates basic dignity and undermines education. People enter and stay in this work because alternatives have been eroded.
Large-scale industrial mines bring displacement that is often violent, or at best poorly managed. Families may be relocated with inadequate compensation. Agricultural land and fishing grounds degrade because of sediment, runoff, and toxic contamination. When communities resist, they sometimes face intimidation and repressive policing.
Both forms of extraction feed the same supply chains. Brokers, buyers, and multinational companies benefit from a system where risk is concentrated in local populations while profits flow outward. That imbalance is not an accidental side effect. It is a functional feature of global commodity markets.
The companies selling the transition wrap their operations in language about responsibility, sustainability, and traceability. Terms like “responsible sourcing”, “net zero”, and “ethical supply chain” appear in annual reports and glossy marketing.
In many cases these tools serve to manage risk rather than to redistribute power. Traceability can show where a shipment originated. Audits can reveal dangerous sites. But audits and certification rarely alter ownership, tax avoidance strategies, or the structural incentives that encourage environmental harm. Firms can improve compliance without relinquishing control.
Regulation, when it appears, is uneven. Voluntary standards coexist with weak national enforcement in which inspectors are underfunded or politically constrained. The result is a polished narrative of progress that hides the day-to-day reality on the ground.
Understanding why Congo captures so little of the final value requires looking at how minerals become products. Raw ore fetches a price on global markets. Refining and fabrication add most of the value. When a country exports raw ore and imports refined materials and finished products, it loses the bulk of potential gains.
Tax rules, transfer pricing, and secretive contracts make matters worse. Many contracts grant long tax holidays, royalty structures that under-value minerals, or complex ownership arrangements through offshore entities. Multinationals can shift profits through transfer pricing and related party transactions so that taxable income in the producing country is minimal.
Commodity price volatility compounds the problem. When prices spike, companies may reap windfalls without proportional gains in public revenue if contracts cap state shares or if enforcement is weak. When prices fall, local economies remain exposed to the boom-bust cycle. That combination produces fragile development, where mining wealth is rarely translated into stable public investment in services, health, or education.
The strategic importance of cobalt has attracted state-backed actors and multinational groups pursuing secure access. Global rivalries now shape investment flows. Actors with refining capability, downstream industrial capacity, or financial leverage use those assets to secure supply.
This competition can lock the producing country into dependent relationships. Deals often include promises of infrastructure, loans, or immediate revenue in exchange for preferential extraction terms. Those arrangements sometimes come with strings attached that reduce long-term sovereignty: security agreements, access to strategic ports, or control over refining capacity.
If ownership and control are not reconfigured to benefit producing societies, then the scramble for minerals simply reproduces older patterns of foreign domination in a new guise.
Mining leaves a complex ecological footprint. Open pits alter landscape hydrology. Tailings and waste rock can leach heavy metals into water systems. Forests are cleared to make way for operations and associated infrastructure. Soil contamination undermines agriculture for generations.
Communities that once relied on riverine fishing and small-scale farming find their options narrowed. Food sovereignty declines, and dependence on purchased goods rises. Health impacts increase, driven by polluted water and air-borne particulates. The ecological losses are intergenerational, reducing resilience to climate shocks and undermining future livelihoods.
This is a double injustice. The countries and communities suffering these harms contributed little to the emissions driving climate change, and yet they bear concentrated costs for technologies that primarily benefit wealthier societies.
Calls for traceability, audits, and better reporting are widespread and sometimes well-intentioned. They can expose bad actors and support targeted interventions. But transparency by itself does not equal justice.
If ownership remains concentrated, then transparency reveals who benefits without changing the beneficiaries. If national institutions lack capacity, then evidence of harm does not lead to effective remedy. If legal frameworks favour investors, then transparency can be weaponised as a compliance checkbox rather than a lever for structural reform.
Real change requires rethinking who owns, who manages, and who decides.
An eco-socialist approach reframes the question. It starts from democratic control, material sufficiency, ecological repair, and reparative finance. It rejects the premise that extraction must be the backbone of development.
Decisions about extraction must rest with people who live on the land. That includes public enterprises governed by accountable institutions, cooperatives that deliver direct benefits to workers and residents, and legal frameworks that enshrine community vetoes. Ownership is not merely a legal form; it is democratic practice.
The simplest way to ease pressure on extraction zones is to use less raw material. Policies that prioritise repair, modular design, and second-use batteries reduce demand. Consumer economies in wealthy countries must shift toward sufficiency, not constant expansion.
Instead of exporting raw ores, countries can build refining and manufacturing capacity regionally. That requires investment, technology sharing, and protective industrial policy that avoids simply handing control to multinational corporations. With greater local processing, a higher share of value can stay within producing regions.
Wealthy nations must fund transitions in ways that respect sovereignty and build public capacity. That means grants and transfers, not loans that compound debt. Climate finance should be aimed at building public infrastructure, restoring ecosystems, and supporting livelihoods outside of mining.
Rehabilitation of land, rivers, and forests should be treated as core development activity. Restored ecosystems provide food, water, and resilience. Funding for restoration must be long-term and community-led.
Across Africa, communities and organisations are experimenting with alternatives. Worker cooperatives, community land trusts, and local processing initiatives offer models for placing benefits closer to producers. Regional bodies and blocs have proposed industrial strategies aimed at capturing more value from mineral wealth. These efforts are uneven, underfunded, and contested, but they offer a sketch of what is possible when political agency shifts toward people and away from extractive capital.
Solidarity networks in other regions have also demonstrated paths for reparative finance and technology transfer. South-South collaboration can help bypass some of the extractive traps embedded in older models of development assistance.
Technical innovations that reduce or eliminate cobalt are important. They can lessen future pressure on extraction hotspots. But unless those innovations are guided by democratic policy, they can become another route for firms to concentrate value while externalising harms.
Technology matters only when combined with political rules that set production goals, distribution priorities, and environmental limits. Without that, innovation follows corporate incentives rather than public need.
If the transition is measured only in tons of material and megawatts of capacity, then it will be judged a success even as entire landscapes are degraded and communities are displaced. That would be a tragic outcome. A truly just transition would be measured by who gains power, who controls land, who decides whether extraction happens, and whether ecological damage is repaired.
Congo is not a warehouse of minerals for the world. It is home to millions of people, to rivers, forests, and lives that deserve protection. A green future worth having must begin by confronting the political economy that turns human life into a raw material.
To change course we need more than better reporting, more than cleaner branding, and more than technological fixes. We need collective politics that redistribute power, repair ecosystems, and reduce dependency on endless extraction. We need policies that treat ecological restoration as development, that make value stay closer to where it is created, and that centre the voices of people who have been asked to sacrifice for other people’s comforts.
If the world chooses a different path, then the tools of the transition can serve life rather than profit. If not, history will remember a green transition that repeated the same violences as the old one, only under a new name. The choice is political, and it is urgent.
]]>Eco-socialism meets the scale of that emergency. It links human freedom with ecological survival, arguing that a liveable world depends on dismantling the economic logic that turns life into profit.
Eco-socialism starts from a simple truth: an economy built on endless growth will destroy the world that makes life possible. Its foundation is democratic and ecological:
A society organised for life would look fundamentally different:
Eco-socialism is not austerity. It is abundance reorganised around wellbeing instead of waste.
Eco-socialism rejects the rituals of green capitalism: offsets that excuse pollution, carbon markets that turn the atmosphere into a commodity, and corporate branding that sells extraction as sustainability. Technology has a role, but it cannot fix a crisis rooted in power.
Eco-socialism is rooted in democratic control. Real development means housing, transport, healthcare, and regenerative agriculture - the foundations of dignity. Ecological repair is not a restraint on prosperity. It is the condition for it.
Eco-socialism embraces science and innovation, but directs them toward life rather than profit. It is not nostalgia. It is transformation.
An eco-socialist world prioritises:
Justice demands both restoration and redistribution:
No nation stands alone in a collapsing climate. Eco-socialism is international by necessity:
Eco-socialism builds on the core commitments of democratic socialism, advancing equality, worker power, public ownership, and deep democracy.
It adds a vital recognition: without ecological limits, socialism can mirror the same destructive industrialism it seeks to replace. Eco-socialism ties social justice to ecological survival, rooted in community land struggles and environmental science.
Democracy cannot endure on a dying planet. Ecological transition cannot occur under capital. The two stand or collapse together: freedom and a liveable world are inseparable.
Extraction is no mistake. It is empire’s legacy. Eco-socialism challenges the colonial structures that still govern global trade, land, and resources. It insists on:
Decolonisation is not an optional add-on to ecological politics. It is the heart of it.
A real transition requires:
Change does not begin in boardrooms. It begins in movements:
An eco-socialist programme includes:
Eco-socialism is not a dream. It is survival. It rejects a world where profit decides who lives and who is lost. It calls for democracy in a time when democracy is impossible without ecological stability.
This is the work: to build an economy that sustains life, not destroys it. A politics for people and planet - a politics for life.
]]>The Red Soil exists to challenge that system. It is not a neutral platform. It is a form of critical resistance.
This project is written from South Africa, in solidarity with everyone fighting empire, exploitation, and ecological breakdown. It stands in a long tradition of liberation thought, which holds that the struggle for human freedom and the struggle for the living planet are one and the same.
We live in an age of planetary emergency - ecological, economic, and moral. The forces that profit from destruction will not dismantle themselves.
The task ahead is not only to survive, but to build an alternative grounded in justice, democracy, and care for the Earth.
The Red Soil is a small offering to that work, a space for analysis, solidarity, and shared imagination in the service of life.
This publication will feature essays, reflections, and analysis from many voices. They will examine how global systems of power work and how they can be changed through democratic and ecological struggle.
Contributions will examine the intersections between:
Each contribution will ask one central question:
What must change for people and planet to thrive, and how do we make it happen together?
To write is to resist forgetting. To analyse is to fight despair with understanding. To imagine a better world is already an act of defiance.
This space is not neutral ground. It is a call to action: to think, write, and act for life.
Welcome to The Red Soil, for people and planet.
]]>