From the Wikipedia article: "Silicone compounds are pervasive in the environment. Particular silicone compounds, cyclic siloxanes D4 and D5, are air and water pollutants and have negative health effects on test animals. They are used in various personal care products. The European Chemicals Agency found that "D4 is a persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substance and D5 is a very persistent, very bioaccumulative..."
So maybe silicones aren't great either
If a plant isn't native, the insects and animals that eat or use it aren't around, those that are can't use it, and it's of limited use to the ecosystem. Not to mention it's interactions with other plants.
What is your definition of good here? Are you talking about a single sheet of metal, or something over it? Because a single sheet sounds like it would be terrible insulation and really loud when it rains.
While most readers probably won't check further, if they print "mr y from village x said this" there's more chance that either mr y can come forward & say "no I didn't" or other villagers can say "I live in village x and I don't know any mr y" or another journalist can say "I checked the records of village x and there's no mr y listed".
Unnamed sources are a great delight of tabloid writers and while not proof of lying, they make a story less credible. This is why credible news programmes/newspapers have things like requiring at least 2 sources for any claim. Journalistic standards are a thing.
And I that was kind of extinction rebellion's whole point: money talks, let's hit the money, and sure enough the gained attention. However, if economic crimes were equivalent to terrorism there'd be a lot more fraudsters in high security prisons.
Do you have evidence for that? I in turn would assume that there's considerably less flora since the industrial revolution. If you ever kept a garden you know how fast weeds colonise bare soil.
OK, fiction writers aren't (often) scientists so while such discussions might be interesting you should not take them as authoritative & evidence based.
It's a slightly eugenic fallacy which assumes that a) poor people are poor because they're stupid and feckless, and no other reason like the inbuilt injustices on our society (it's considerably easier to stay rich than to get rich) and b) education, upbringing and innate intelligence are the same thing. Life situation isn't genetics.
Or, you know they could just pay it in without you doing anything. While that's sitting there as rewards you don't get interest on it but they can still use it.
I knew someone who worked for Saintsbury's (UK supermarket) & they said 4 wins before xmas runs of roses chocolates went on the shelves at £10 each, and they expected to sell none until 2 weeks before xmas when they cut the price to £5 and advertised 50% off. Apparently this is (or was at the time?) normal industry behaviour.
I notice there are no named quotes here, it's all "a holy man" "a woman". I admit I didn't read the other sources like the book but it's a bit of a red flag for me.
For non Amazon books, check out bookshop.org if it's in your country yet, they're created to provide an alternative to Amazon for brick & mortar independent retailers. They basically manage inventory & shipping for them and you can direct part of your sale to a specific shop or let be shared among all members.