2) It can. If consumed too much. Which is only possible because it of its availability in abundance.

3) It isn't. This is propaganda spread by think tanks and shills of stockholders of energy companies. Blackrock and these-alike.

They actually don't want people to decentralize their energy supply or produce their own.

5) It isn't. The food system is designed to make money. Providing you with a healthy diet may have contrary effects on their revenues. This is the most pressing issue at hand.

7) If you let them buy you out of it. If you become a greedy parasite yourself, this is correct. Idealists have become a rare species, sadly.

8) Everybody has a belief. But doubt, e.g. is also a belief. By definition.

10) Depends mostly on the funding structure of the institute conducting the research. There exists independent research on climate change.

13) Difficult to argue. But I don't believe so. The dosage defines the poison, as does the individual person.

16) That is why you should consider at least two sources for any topic that piques your interest.

17) Depends on your field of study. Mathematics or linguistics are relatively non-political.

18) But they are repairable. With much less consumption of resources than all this planned obsolescence gadgetry is. If they were designed for more resilience, they could run even much longer without malfunction. Which is hard to enforce politically in a system that relies on growth of sales.

20) Cancer is also caused by cell mutation. Very narrow view. But I agree on the fact that sugar and convenience food is generally unhealthy.

21) You normalize obesity at best. Even when you can't afford a healthy diet, you can control your behavior.

Otherwise, I mostly agree on this list.