His request is simple; he wants to speak to you Mr Cameron, to present you with scientific evidence and to show you the social opposition to fracking, particularly from Lancashire where he lives, but he also acts as a passionate green voice for many people in the UK who feel the same way. He isn't a scientist, or a powerful politician or a celebrity; he is a regular everyday bloke who believes fracking is a very bad idea - today (4/12/2015) is his 12th day without food. He wants to talk to you about the exponential growth of support from regular everyday folks who don't have a voice on the telly, the radio or in the papers, but who want you and our government to deliver renewable, sustainable, safe options to power our country. He just wants to talk to you Mr Cameron - go and see him! * * * Gayzer has no PR or media team, no YouTube channel or popular blog page to help raise his profile. Please show your support for his plight; he is your next-door neighbour, he is the voice in the supermarket queue, he is the one who is putting everything on the line to try to protect the future of all of our children.

While big energy companies make record profits, the fuel bills of ordinary Londoners are out of control. And while other major cities make the transition to clean energy -- tackling air pollution and climate change -- London is lagging behind. We don’t have to accept profiteering, poverty and pollution. Switched On London is calling for a people-powered alternative. A publicly owned company with social justice, clean energy and democracy at its core... SOCIAL JUSTICE --> We want an energy company that offers fair, affordable prices, based on a progressive pricing system. --> We want an energy company that does not cut-off access to those who can’t pay and that does not install unwanted prepayment meters. --> We want an energy company that re-invests all revenues in measures to address fuel poverty and the cost of living crisis, particularly prioritising ambitious investment in household energy efficiency measures. --> We want an energy company that treats its workers fairly, meaning paying at least a London Living Wage, good terms and conditions, secure, unionised and non-precarious work. CLEAN ENERGY --> We want ambitious public investment in new renewable energy generating capacity (we are initiating research into an appropriate specific investment target). A significant portion should be invested in renewable capacity in London. --> The GLA and London local authorities must divest their pension funds from fossil fuels, and re-invest this money to fund the new renewable capacity we need. Other public funding sources for new renewable investment to be explored include municipal bonds and borrowing. --> We want an energy company that aims to sell 100% renewable energy as soon as feasibly possible. DEMOCRACY --> We want a company fully owned by London public bodies (without any private partners) but controlled by people directly. --> To do this, we want to integrate a range of democratic mechanisms, including: 1. A board of directors made up of: 1/3rd London public officials; 1/3rd energy company employees elected democratically by the whole energy company workforce; 1/3rd ordinary London residents, elected democratically with all London residents and all non-London customers given a vote. Board membership must guarantee at least 50% representation of women. 2. Annual open assemblies in every London borough, where representatives of the company have to answer questions and take input and advice. 3. The creation of an online democratic forum where people can discuss and influence the company’s operations, including through public petitions. 4. An obligation for the board to discuss public petitions, if backed by 1% or more of London’s population. 5. An obligation for an online referendum on a proposal, if backed by 5% of London’s population. 6. 100% transparency in all operations. 7. These democratic measures apply to all London residents, regardless of citizenship/nationality status.

Anti women and anti renewable energy

The Swansea Bay lagoon project heralds a new 'world first' in energy supply. It was hailed as 'a game changer for British energy, a catalyst for the birth and expansion of an industry with the potential to create energy by harnessing a predictable and renewable resource.' It would harness the power of the tides to create energy- it's doing it every day. All we need to do is make it work in our favour. Anyone who has reservations about any other means of energy creation should have their attention focused on this project. This project is under threat, and along with it the unprecedented opportunities for a disadvantaged area to create worthwhile, real jobs in business, education, tourism and environmental communities. We urge you to stick to your pledge to support this project and consider how wonderful it would be to be at the forefront of world innovation in tidal energy production. It's all very well turning to China to fulfill our growing energy needs, but we have this natural resource around our island. We could be out there changing the way the world creates renewable energy. What a missed opportunity it would be for the UK if you abandon it.

The development and use of renewable energy sources is required to protect the future of all who live and work in Gloucestershire from Climate Change. The current strategy of the Pension Fund administered by Gloucestershire County Council Pension Comittee to invest many many £millions in large fossil fuel companies is compromising the future of those of us who live in Gloucestershire and those who contribute to or are receiving GCC pensions.

100% London teamed up with energy experts to come up with nine essential steps to a clean energy future for London. The mayor needs to stand with every Londoner, including businesses, schools, hospitals and local councils, to make sure we build a clean future for our city. Here’s what the new mayor should commit to do to make London 100% clean: - Fix up older homes, to make them warm and energy efficient - Invest in public transport - Create a network of renewable energy suppliers - Make cycling safe and accessible for everybody - A city-wide solar power strategy - Make freight carbon-free - Cleaner air through lower vehicle emissions - Use resources well, and recycle more effectively - Modernise our workplaces to make them energy efficient

As pointed out recently by the 2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change, the global health improvements witnessed in recent decades risk being undone by climate change.. We also know that most of the existing coal, oil and gas reserves must stay in the ground if this is to be avoided. However, the energy sector’s continued exploration for new fossil fuel reserves makes clear that they will only respond to market forces. The ethical and financial case for fossil fuel divestment is thus well founded, and widely supported by, amongst others, the President of the World Bank and Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO)- both public health physicians. Whilst we commend the Gates Foundation Asset Trust’s recent decision to divest $765.9 million worth of shares from ExxonMobil, we feel that this does not go far enough. By failing to divest from the major fossil fuel companies, the Gates Foundation is implicitly providing moral support to companies that continue to obstruct meaningful action to reduce GHG emissions. Just as important, it sends the wrong signal to many governments who continue to frame their energy policies under the influence of the fossil fuel industry. It also misses the opportunity to support a transition to a safer and healthier world through transfer of investment to the renewable energy sector. Constructive engagement with the fossil fuel industry is important, but the Gates Foundation is better placed to support the transformation of the energy sector if it does not simultaneously signal that it is morally acceptable to profit from industries that cause global warming and threaten the health, biodiversity and security of the planet. Yours sincerely, Dr David McCoy, Medact, UK Prof. Hugh Montgomery, University College London Prof Sue Atkinson and Dr Robin Stott, on behalf of the Climate and Health Council, UK Dr David Pencheon, Director, Sustainable Development Unit for the Health and Social Care System, UK ----------- If you are from outside the UK then please email alicemunro@medact.org with the following details, and we will add you to the petition manually: Full name, Email, Job title, Country and whether you work in the health sector.

Fracking is an inherently dangerous industrial process which poisons water aquifers. Do we want our families and future generations to suffer from the effects of chemically contaminated water in perpetuity? Environment America's Research and policy Centre’s report in 2013, which studied the impact of fracking across the United States, states that fracking poses grave risks to the environment and human health. For this reason the Scottish and Welsh assemblies have imposed a moratorium on fracking in Scotland and Wales. There have been many cases across the US where contamination of drinking water has led to serious impacts on health for humans and livestock. I urge anyone to get hold of it, it makes very sobering reading. Fracking is not a safe industry and the evidence from studies in the US backs this up. The visual and environmental impact of this industrial process on the landscape and to habitats is dramatic and therefore extremely concerning. Damage is caused by drilling through water bearing rock strata and pumping a cocktail of toxic chemicals at extremely high pressure in order to shatter oil bearing shale. Well linings break and degrade leading to irreversible contamination of aquifers. The vast quantities, millions of gallons, of water for this process must be taken in competition with the needs of irrigation for agriculture and our drinking water. The water becomes contaminated and cannot be recycled but has to be brought back to the surface and stored in reservoirs or dumped, leading to escape and further permanent damage to the environment. Fracking will without question threaten the purity and future security of water aquifers across England in densely populated counties including Surrey, Sussex and Hampshire. Drilling horizontally below for example beneath the South Downs National Park cannot be considered safe. In geological terms, this isn't very deep at all. Depth does not address the risk fundamentals that high pressure fracking and extraction from well head to oil bearing strata and in reverse in a environmentally sensitive and densely populated region poses to health. Fracking should be regulated with as much rigour as the nuclear industry is under European Environmental Impact Assessment regulation. The impact of fracking is such a critical and detailed issue for the UK, I urge everyone to review the evidence on fracking that is emerging from the US for themselves and not rely on ministerial briefings and support a moratorium on fracking in England until fracking can ever be proved to be a safe and sustainable industrial practice. There are proven safe and sustainable alternatives to securing the nation's energy requirements.

RWE Innogy have submitted a planning application to dam the river Conwy and build a hydro electric power plant. The Afon Conwy is a unique & nationally important river designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a famous salmon & sea trout fishery and classic white water kayaking and canoeing resource. The section of the river that will be affected by the dam includes the famous Conwy Falls waterfall a significant visitor attraction and the iconic Fairy Glen. Photo ©Andy Teasdale

1 The government have not looked at greener energy alternatives. 2 There is nuclear waste that can damage the environment. 3 its too costly at £25,000,000 for the 6,000000 people it will provide electricty for which will also cost more. 4 We could be controlled by China through their computer systems. 5 The Chinese would gain more power in Europe

This planning proposal was voted out by Fylde Planning Dept. earlier in October by a very narrow vote. The Councillors voting against the proposal do not see the value of green, pollution free energy, which we, in the western world, need desperately. The Councillors voted narrowly against this proposal in the face of overwhelming public support, and I consider this very undemocratic. They did not seem to listen to the arguments that the land would get double value by producing energy and still be able to be used for grazing as it has for the last 30 years, This seems to be nimbyism, short sighted and not willing to encompass new technology.

The commitment to purchase electricity from a future Hinckley C is eye-wateringly expensive. By contrast, the cost now for continuing our support for renewable energy is a tiny fraction of that amount. Britain's national interest is being sacrificed on the altar of Chinese-invested-and-profited but UK-taxpayer-funded nuclear power. We should take the opportunity to invest in renewable energy now, while borrowing costs are low.