In the UK, catching Covid-19 tends to make people poor.

That's a sure sign of a society that doesn't do enough to help sick and disabled people.

Bolsonaro is making a final attack against the environment, the forest, and indigenous people.

Putin is bombarding museums and cathedrals as well as living civilians.

Is it valid to "offset" destruction an area of habitat by declaring another equal area legally protected? I don't believe so.

The reasoning for it seems to be based on the assumption that every area of forest that isn't protected now will certainly be destroyed later. Only thus would it follow that protecting one square mile now increases by one square mile the area of habitat that will ultimately survive.

That assumption is terribly pessimistic. If it were valid, disaster would be assured. But it clearly can't be valid in general, because any forest that isn't protected this year will probably still exist next year and could be protected then.

There is a questionable assumption on the other side, too. Declaring a square mile of forest "protected" won't assure it survives. It could be burnt in a wildfire 300 years from now, or next week.

I think the only valid way to offset the destruction of some habitat is to create a new area of substitute habitat -- and that more easily said than done.

Although the IPCC has reported that heat itself is starting to kill people (and other living things), the planet roasters are proposing that fracking is the way to fight Putin.

Australia's planet-roaster government is likewise trying to kill you.

In one of Australia's flooded, ruined towns, families now homeless know that the planet-roaster politicians did this to them.

Geg Palast suggests crushing Russia economically by allowing Venezuela to export oil again.

Cheap gasoline has an immediate appeal, but it will destroy civilization. Making fuel expensive is an inherent part of making transport decarbonize. But that should be a steady and gradual process -- price shocks are not good for progress.