The head of the IEA (International Energy Agency) has affirmed that civilization must not explode any "carbon bombs".

He also pointed out that these investments in future suicide will do nothing to ease the current high prices. Putin's war will be long over by the time they produce anything.

The IEA has in the past provided cover for fossil fuel expansion plans, thus protecting them from pressure to cut back world emissions. Its ceasing to do so means one layer of cover removed.

Arguing that society has no reason to permit the existence of billionaires.

The Bank of England warned that UK banks and insurers will face £340bn worth of climate-related losses by 2050.

Will the planet roasters heed this warning?

The head of NATO addressed the Davos meeting and told the tycoons that "free trade" had to be limited to protect national security.

The examples he cited have to do with military security, and I agree with him on those issues. But there are other principles that likewise ought to outweigh letting businesses do as they like. For instance,

making it too easy for businesses to merge leads to price gouging and shortages.

Letting businesses have as much political power as they now do leads to starvation, homelessness, and untreated injury and illness for those who can't work.

Making it too easy for businesses resist unions leads to those same problems for employed people.

Investigations of the Putin forces' use of weapons that kill across a substantial area: cluster bombs, powerful bombs, fléchettes and unguided missiles.

The treaty that entirely prohibits cluster bombs has not been signed by the world's main military powers, or by Ukraine. So I think it is a mistake to suppose that use of cluster bombs is, ipso facto, a war crime.

However, the more general treaty against using imprecise weapons in residential areas must cover cluster bombs along with the other weapons described in the article. So the use of cluster bombs there would be war crimes.