The UN was created to foster world peace. Now nations exert their will on the less powerful and use economic pressure, veto power, to get their way.

Times have changed since the UN was formed and it is hopelessly ill equipped to contend with the degradation and poisoning of the planet’s seas, fresh water, atmosphere, soil, biodiversity, etc.

We also have a collapse of human rights, diminishing democracies, the concentration of media and information, population concerns, nuclear and GMO concerns and a plastic plague destroying the oceans.

In response, people have formed countless non-government organizations (NGOs) and activist groups as they try to prompt our elected political representatives to do something constructive.

While we organize and struggle, we are hassled and patronized by market forces, which have a strong interaction and collaboration with politicians and political parties.

Environmentalists and social-minded individuals and groups are fragmented and disorganized and have little hope of influencing or changing any of the disasters facing us.

This situation could be much improved if we could just get ourselves established into a powerful cooperative worldwide organization with a defined universal mission.

Let’s assume that we collectively agree that something needs to be done and that it is worthwhile. Is success attainable? It is, provided we put the power of unified world citizens both before and behind corrective initiatives.

What would we need to do? List the issues that need addressing so that the depth of the overall situation is clear to one and all.

Next, put the issues into categories and prioritize them within each category. Put them into a 25-year plan. Establish something simple initially, rather than an ominous issue, remembering that it will take time for this new organization to gather significant worldwide member support.

Use available information. NGOs and other groups have vast databases with which we can make informed decisions.

Take the established categories and put them into a sequence so that they can be presented to the membership for input and consideration one at a time. If we use 26 categories and allow a fortnight between publication and email distribution of a new petition, we can address an issue in each and every category in each year of the plan.

Everyone, including business leaders and politicians, will be put on notice that we are determined to press for remedial action. Everyone will be able to see for him or herself what is in the “pipeline” and slatted for corrective action.

Email the petition to members. If the member agrees with the petition’s objectives, then it is signed. The petition is then forwarded to all 190-plus legislative powers on the planet.

I would like to see reductions in plastic usage; I have concern for food safety and a concern for hormone-mimicking hormones in consumer products. I would like to see a ban on female genital mutilation.

Therefore I would subscribe to plastic, toxins, food and human rights. This would allow me to consider four petitions per year, and to change my settings to include or exclude categories at any time.

Another individual might choose democracy/voting as their priority. This person may also add nuclear issues.

Another might prefer water resources and land/soil loss degradation. Another might choose population concerns.

All categories would have their champions. Groups that currently use e-petitions are generally reacting to human rights violations within single nations. Other petitions may be to protect pollinators (species).

Our petitions must meet more stringent criteria. We must also avoid outside influence, as experienced with the UN, and stick with the concept of one member, one vote.

AVAAZ uses e-petitions effectively. They have an enviable 42 million members. Unlike AVAAZ, we would cover all categories and e-petition over 190 nations, whereas they cover few categories and e-petition single legislations or corporations.

As an example of how this might work I offer the following: A recent TV program suggested the plastic problem lies in the recycling and waste management programs. This is a grave error.

Plastic and the manufacturing in plastic is the problem itself. Can we eliminate manufacturing in plastic? Not likely! Can we eliminate manufacturing of plastic drinking straws? If so, we make it an issue for inclusion and attention in the 25-year plan.

Using the logic, “No manufacturing of plastic straws,” we could demand “No manufacturing of plastic net bags for produce.” Manufacturers could revert back to twisted paper code bags.

As we progress we might demand “No manufacturing of toys in plastic.” Manufacturers would look to alternative materials. Let’s try something that might be more contentious – “No packaging of toothpaste in plastic tubes.” If my toothpaste came in powder form in a cardboard container, I could cope.

Billions of non-biodegradable tubes would be removed from the ecosystem yearly, forever. Imagine the number of albatross that might survive because there were billions fewer plastic caps to feed, and kill, their fledgling offspring.

A few more ideas: “No plastic in razor manufacturing,” “No plastic coat hangers,” “No plastic stickers on fruit and vegetables,” “No plastic to be used in vegetable/olive oil containers,” etc.
We would move progressively to harder issues. Looking to the issue of manmade fibers we will find a horrendous situation. All clothing and carpets disintegrate and shed fibers.

Millions of tonnes of fibers are washed into the oceans where they become part of the food chain. This toxic soup is a crisis that can be reduced because we know what is causing it; we just need to accept the obvious and make some dramatic changes.

In this paper, I have addressed only one category of problems and only a few issues within said category.

NGOs, individuals and other groups could put together a much more comprehensive list.

In conclusion, the people themselves must become united and empowered if we are to make any headway.

To do this we need an organization free from intrigue and political posturing, one where the meek become willing to participate in the process and forge their own destiny, free from market and political influences.