The WWF works with companies that damage the environment, hoping to teach them to do that less.

It sounds great in theory — supposing that it achieves the intended results. But I wonder what they are giving those companies today to achieve the hoped-for improvement years from now. And what they will do if the improvement achieved is less then hoped.

Big US businesses pledge responsibility to their "stakeholders", but that doesn't seem to include workers, or the customers of their customers, or the public.

*The European commission has been accused of seeking to cut EU funding for the continent’s poorest people by 50% to secure post-Brexit cost savings and extra funds for defence projects.*

Over a million Uighurs in China are imprisoned in concentration camps, being brainwashed to talk about how they love Chairman Xi, as well as starved, sterilized, tortured, raped, and, killed.

Those outside the camps are subject to total tracking and control.

Uighurs outside China say they can no longer reach their parents or their children, nor find out where those are.

Ironically, China's wealth has bought the support of governments that claim to defend Muslims.

I disagree with the claim made by an interviewee that imprisonment in Guantanamo is nothing compared with imprisonment in those concentration camps. The two have a lot in common.

The article reports about Chinese people who defend the oppression and totalitarian control of Uighurs to be "patriotic" Chinese. This reminds me of the Americans who defend US wars to be "patriotic" Americans. Just as Americans are inclined to assume their superiority to other nations, so are Chinese, who have long called other peoples "barbarians".

Both peoples need to learn to resist that misguided idea of "patriotism". A true patriot wants per country to deserve respect, not extort it through bullying.

Now that few deny the climate crisis, the movement needs to make some basic decisions.

How long a time period should we consider? I argue for an answer for that. In principle we should consider the really long term; but we cannot make concrete plans for 10,000 years from now.

I think we can use this heuristic: if high-tech civilization with human rights can survive to reach 2070 with the greenhouse gas level going down, it should be in a position to cope after that. We must aim to make sure we reach that level of success.

We need to preserve human rights, or we face a China-like world forever after.

Beyond that, we should preserve as much of what is good in today's world as we can. But that has to be secondary to avoiding disaster, because there will be no way to protect anything through a full-blown climate disaster.