Fair enough - you're not completely wrong, looking at it from a wider perspective.
I can't see that ever happening however - the majority of relatively wealthy people are unlikely to ever accept a reduction in their wealth even if it solves climate change, world hunger, whatever.People want to see an easy solution that doesn't affect them directly. Much more likely is the rise of the far right, riots, etc.
Fixing this problem requires more redistribution of wealth than degrowth. Workers should be paid appropriately for their work, and those at the top should get a smaller slice of the pie.
Capitalism which means that business owners are free to make billions yet those who produce the goods go hungry, is utterly intolerable.
Such a rubbish fine. It probably barely covers the cost of cleanup of dead fish by the Environment Agency, and the cleanup of private properties which had actual shit floating into them.
Not only was it an illegal discharge of sewage, but in an area they had absolutely no permit to do so, so it shouldn't have even been possible for sewage to discharge here. And it was directly into a public water supply, a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a beautiful National Park. They've clearly been extremely careless and/or nefarious when it comes to implementing the infrastructure.
The fine should have been at least ten times the amount.
Even though it looks kinda cool and cyberpunk, it's still gross that there's so many roads completely built over a city where people work and live, with a No Cycling sign suggesting cyclists and pedestrians are second class citizens here.
Reading these links, I don't really understand why, for example, Disability Rights UK are against the assisted dying bill. They don't say what's wrong with the bill, they just say it's bad. This bill is aimed at terminally ill people not disabled people, and its not clear from those links what the issue is.
The only links of yours that do explain in detail the issues with the bill, are relating to an unrelated Scottish bill.
I've never really thought of it as a bad thing. You can still say nothing, or "I want to speak with a lawyer before I answer any questions".
I've always considered it to be more about a line of questioning at trial. If you've invented an alibi, the prosecution can ask you "why are you only coming up with this excuse now but you didn't at the time?". You might then have a good reason for this, such as "I didn't think it was a good idea to answer questions without first consulting a lawyer".
The American model of having immunity if you just stay quiet is a bit odd in comparison.
"There were some rare bats we were legally obliged to protect, but we just had to drive the tracks right through the woods. We couldn't come up with any viable solutions except an ugly shed, then when the council complained about how ugly it was, we went over their heads to central government and lawyered them into submission. Wow that was expensive, huh."
Making short term rental completely illegal is not a good idea as it would impact on local tourism etc, but they should allow (or force) councils to limit licences for short term rentals to a certain percentage of housing.
My son had a book called "You're Called What?!" which featured a tasseled wobbegong, alongside other animals such as the Shovelnose Guitarfish, Bone Eating Snot Flower Worm, and the Aha Ha.
We disabled chat and friend requests, and we only let our kid play it in the same room as us.