A climate strike has been announced for March 25. Past experience suggests that the site that gives information about strike events will require nonfree Javascript even to find them. If so, that will impede people who defend their own software freedom from participating in the climate strike. I won't be able in good conscience to post a link to their site, and I won't know where there is an event near me.

I can't believe that the people who organize the climate strike are intentionally working against the free software movement. Why would they do that, given that nonfree software promotes extra e-waste in addition to its direct injustice to every user?

More likely they simply don't see the problem in the usual "solutions" that mistreat them every day in other web sites.

Perhaps they make the assumption that since "everybody" uses these online dis-services, such must be acceptable. However, they know how to doubt that assumption when it's a matter of greenhouse gas emissions or other pollution. If only they recognized nonfree software as a kind of systemic pollution, they might choose solutions for their own sites that avoid creating yet one more problem of that kind.

Given the situation as it is, a natural workaround for us is to set up to scrape their site and post the information in another site which is accessible with no techno-ethical obstacle. I wanted to ask the person who has done this in the past, but perse has become unreachable.

Would anyone reading this like to do the job, in time for people to find strike events and participate? Please write to me if you are ready, willing and able to do it.

I hope the repeater site will be up and running by March 19 and announced by March 20. I know that's a bit fast, but that's the situation we are in.

I don't know the URL of the site where the organizers post this information.

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.