The road that passes the front of the Chinese embassy to the US may be renamed after Liu Xiaobo.

I am in favor of this. If China does not like to be embarrassed by its own conduct, it can retaliate by renaming the street where the US embassy to China stands. How about "Guantanamo Road"? "Edward Snowden Avenue"? "Dubya's War Crimes Boulevard"?

Human destruction of habitats threatens the survival of apes in the wild. (Along with thousands of other species that are less fascinating to us.)

Greenpeace is embarrassed because its director was commuting by airplane. However, questions of which technologies to eschew personally for the sake of the environment are not so easy to answer.

We can't end global heating by choosing to fly less. We need to convince millions of others to fly less, for instance with a higher tax on flying such as the EU tried to impose.

Burning fuel is not an act of oppression; it only becomes harmful because of the amount we burn. This makes the right decision about Greenpeace's own fuel use less clear. In the end, I think it is important for the director to take trains, not because it will save significant energy, but so he can set a better example.

In the free software movement, campaigning for users' right to control their computing, we face questions that at first sight look similar to those Greenpeace faces, but there is a crucial difference. Nonfree program is not a form of pollution, it is an injustice. If you run a nonfree program, the injustice towards you is independent of who else runs it. Thus we say nobody should run a nonfree program and nobody should develop one. For us to legitimize nonfree software would be self-contradictory.

A coal baron got himself elected to the Australian Senate, and now blocks Abbott's plan to crush renewable energy in Australia.

About half the "bee-friendly" plants on sale in the US and Canada contain neonicotinoid pesticides which kill bees.