It is a big problem in parts of Europe, the UK especially. Canada has the phenomenon much more severely than the US does, it has led to extremely unaffordable housing and is a major and much debated public issue.

This specifically is a fringe minority, but also the current government is not that popular. The Conservatives have a good chance of forming government after the next election, though probably a minority government. I'm not thrilled with their leader Pierre Polievre though, he was my least favourite of Harper's ministers. Bellicose and good at sound bites, but I think he'll be shit at governing. So I imagine many Canadians will feel we have a tough choice.

Bit of column A, bit of column B. But, for the most part, yeah, that stuff is in there because most of humanity is pretty dang horny whether they repress it or not, it's why sex sells. I am sure that does suck for you though.

Mostly they're starving to death, you see alot of photos of them emaciated up around Churchill. There are usually already bear populations present in the regions that can still better support polar bears, the bears hang around in their regions during the summer and wait for the sea ice where they can hunt seals, and burn their fat reserves in order to live. They don't naturally migrate giant distances like caribou, they keep still and try to conserve energy.

Viruses actually are not other cells, they're far, far smaller and simpler then cells, essentially just some RNA or DNA and enough protein to get into the cell and get to work, so it is very worth it for them to infect even tiny single celled organisms, since they are thousands of times larger than viruses, and viruses simply cannot reproduce on their own, unlike bacteria. There are, however, also bacteria that do infect and parasitize other bacteria, growing inside them and using their energy to grow and reproduce, like bdellovibrio bacteriovorus. There are also predatory single celled organisms, that eat other single celled organisms. Single celled organisms come in all kinds of sizes, and fill all sorts of niches in their ecology. Just as a leech cannot take energy and reproduce by photosynthesizing or by eating grass and has to be a parasite, so to do most of these organisms have no choice but to fill the roles they have adapted to fill.

People need to eat and pay rent if they work a job. You can't expect people to give their whole lives to a charity, that's honestly too much to ask. If the labour is supposed to be a charitable donation, you're not going to be able to get people to accept that (thus these strikes). There aren't enough altruistic with their time, independently wealthy people out there for that to work at the scale of the whole charity industry and all the man hours needed to make them work, nor would it be desirable. Some people will volunteer hours at a food bank for example, but you still need some core actual workers there to ensure the whole operation continues, people who are there regularly. It's like that in any operation.

I'm a Canadian who is familiar with many of our first nations and has read much professional anthropological literature about Australian Aboriginal people, so I feel I can comment on this. While both types of groups are connected to their land, Australian Aboriginal mythological relation to the land is way more intense. I imagine separation is way more traumatic, whereas for Canadian First Nations, it's more about separation from the community itself, then specifically about the land, and personal connection to the stories about the land, which are often "owned" by specific individuals in Australia and closely kept.

The carbon cycle. The carbon plants are made of was taken from the air in the first place. If all we ever did was burn plants which regrew using the CO2 in the atmosphere, the total carbon in the system would be the same.

Where we have a problem is taking carbon trapped under the earth, burning it, and adding carbon to the system continually. That's why fossil fuels are such a problem.

That said, growing a bunch of plants on land that displaces natural ecosystems using mechanized farming equipment and fertilizers and then burning them is not exactly an environmental panacea, and I think most studies have shown it to be more of a farm subsidy that's a bit of a wash environmentally.