An analysis of global heating world politics in terms of three pressure blocs.

I disagree with the author's final point. The crucial priority in decarbonizanion is not fairness, it is rapidity.

Going too slow, which the world's governments' current plans would to do, risks causing the collapse of civilization and the death of nearly everyone. Even if those deaths are distributed "fairly", that would still be a bad outcome. We must at all costs act fast enough to minimize the damage.

The Archbishop of Canterbury presented clearly how much is at stake when political leaders decide how hard to push to curb global heating: inadequate effort could result in a much bigger genocide than the one Hitler launched.

Apparently some criticized this statement as disrespectful to Jews, and he apologized for the alleged disrespect. This criticism puzzles me, because I don't see any disrespect in his words. They seem entirely valid to me as a statement of the danger that we face. What are you going to compare the biggest genocide of all time with, other than the biggest known genocide of the past?

I think that 6 billion deaths from climate mayhem is plausible. Of course, that's just handwaving -- we can't know enough to make more than a rough estimate. If we take effective action and are lucky, perhaps only a few hundred million will die from climate disorder. If we run into surprise positive feedbacks, all 7-8 billion humans could die from climate disorder. All depends on how effectively we curb global heating.

A San Francisco thug is charged with manslaughter for escalating a nonviolent encounter with Sean Moore to the point of killing him.

* UK, US and China among countries representing two-thirds of global economy to agree to push green energy and cars.* They plan to make many technologies cheaper and make them available to the whole world, starting with clean electricity, electric vehicles, green steel, elecrolytic hydrogen and sustainable farming.

This won't make the global heating problem fix itself — we will still need to end deforestation, and fund quick adoption of these new solutions. That will require a lot of investment in poor countries.

Bacterial infections are becoming ever more dangerous due to antibiotic resistance, which spreads further every year. In a few decades we will be back where we were in 1940, when there wasn't much to help people fight fight off an infection in a wound.

The article proposes "more incentives" to develop new antibiotics. I fear that means "more patent power, as well as subsidies." If we aren't careful, that will result in antibiotics that are too expensive for most people to use.

Let's learn a lesson from the other drugs that are so expensive people die for lack of money. Let's fund more research on antibiotics, and exclude them from the patent system.