*From [the wrecker] to Bolsonaro, reactionary leaders are invoking a communism that no longer exists as a [dishonest] way of attacking the left.*

Today's left isn't Communist anyway, but liars don't care about the truth of anything.

No matter what your age or condition, Covid-19 can cause you lasting damage that can be incapacitating. The damage can last at least six months, we now know. Six months from now, we may know it can last a year. There is no reason to assume it will ever get better.

Australia's government has proposed a plan for reducing greenhouse emissions, but it depends on making carbon capture and storage far more efficient than it ever has been.

To follow Sweden in curbing Covid-19 requires imitating Sweden's very strong and effective welfare system.

Advocates of regenerative agriculture claim that it could absorb all of humanity's CO2 emissions.

I don't have the basis to judge claims about regenerative agriculture. I can't tell whether they are valid, because I don't know any ground truth from which I can deduce anything in that area. And I don't know of any unbiased entities I could have confidence in. Are any farms succeeding in business using these techniques?

Is it possible to set up a regenerative agriculture emissions compensation scheme? How would it measure up, in terms of costs per ton of CO2 absorbed, against investments in increased energy efficiency? Can the benefit of improved or protected topsoil be quantified?

It would be good to spell out the claim that is being made. What are the claimed benefits, and what are the costs? For instance, the claim could be, "This is a better method of agriculture and farms should make the investment to switch now." Or it could be, "This system or agriculture can't compete today because it would require more farm labor, but we must adopt it for civilization to survive." The difference is fundamental.