The economic impact on both the employees, and those dependant on the local economy, of the closure of the Longannet Power Plant will be felt far and wide. Small local business will be badly hit. There remains no large scale employer in the West Fife area after this closure so regeneration funding is vital to the recovery process.

The scientific evidence of the risks and harms of unconventional gas development mounts every year and we believe that fracked gas has no place in Wales's low carbon future. The 2015 Paris climate agreement, the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act of 2015 and the Environment (Wales) Act of 2016 all make it clear that a swift transition to renewable energy is needed. This is the direction that Wales should firmly take.

The 2015 Paris climate agreement, the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act of 2015 and the Environment (Wales) Act of 2016 make our moral and legal obligations clear - in the face of potentially catastrophic climate change, we must act now to protect future generations. This transition is totally feasible, both technically and financially, and such a bold programme could be transformative for Wales. It would attract green investment, create tens of thousands of jobs and give Wales ownership of its own energy generation and distribution systems. This would be true energy security and it would give Wales political and economic freedom like never before in its history. ------ Mae Cytundeb Hinsawdd Paris 2015, Deddf Llesiant Cenhedlaethau'r Dyfodol (Cymru) 2015 a Deddf Amgylchedd (Cymru) 2016 yn glir iawn ei ddisgwyliadau moesol a chyfreithiol - yng ngwyneb newid hinsawdd a allai fod yn gatastroffig, rhaid i ni weithredu yn awr i amddiffyn cenedlaethau'r dyfodol. Mae'r trawsnewidiad hwn yn gwbl oddifewn ein gallu, yn dechnegol ac yn ariannol, ac fe allai rhaglen uchelgeisiol o'r math fod yn drawsffurfiol i Gymru. Fe fyddai'n denu buddsoddiad gwyrdd, creu degau o filoedd o swyddi a rhoi i Gymru berchnogaeth ar ei systemau ei hunan o gynhyrchu a dosbarthu ynni. Byddai hyn yn wir sicrwydd-ynni ac yn rhoi i Gymru ryddid economaidd a gwleidyddol na fu ganddi erioed o'r blaen.

Unconventional Fossil Fuels extraction and the Volatile Organic Compounds that are released as gasses and liquid spills are inherently dangerous, and we have plenty of evidence from other countries that it causes major damage to life and health. If this industry is to be allowed to operate in this country close to people they should be regulated and monitored stringently. If the cost has to come from the industry then so be it, we need to ensure that the public, animals and environment are safe, and so far with calls to the sites that have been active in the UK the response from the EA has been less than desirable; lying and failing in their duties. Millions of lives are at risk if these wells leak, we need to prevent this from happening. At this moment in time there is no public safety net from this industry who are releasing contaminants into the atmosphere.

Hinkley Point C is a vastly expensive project which has a good chance of failing, at great cost to UK electricity consumers. The model of reactor chosen for Hinkley Point C, the EPR (European Pressurised Reactor), is proving to be a technical disaster. Four are under construction in Finland, France and China and all overdue and over cost - the one in Finland is 9 years behind schedule. The cost of the Hinkley programme has escalated to £18billion and is likely to rise further. At present, the UK demand for electricity is falling and the cost of energy on world markets is also falling. Renewable technologies such as solar and wind are also rapidly becoming cheaper and represent far better value for money if we wish to invest in low-carbon electricity production. The Hinkley reactors will be funded by EDF, a company largely owned by the French government. Its finance director has resigned as he believes the company cannot afford the project. In order to attract investment in the project from France and China, the UK government has guaranteed a unit price for the power produced which is roughly three times the current price. This will inflate the electricity bills of all consumers for decades to come. Since it is a Government decision, it is effectively a tax which we can in no way avoid. A government which professes to believe in the free market has rigged the market by promising the French and Chinese investors a large return on their investment. Any profits will leave the country. Hinkley Point C is an infrastructure project that will end up as a white elephant. The next generation will not understand why we allowed such a grandiose project to be built. They will be left to pay the price through inflated electricity bills and to deal with the nuclear waste which the reactors will produce.

With Five Quarters nolonger in operation there is only Cluff Natural Resources with licences who want use the North East as a testbed for undersea coal gasification (UCG), an experimental method of squeezing out the remaining drops of coal. They have received licences to test down the NE coast from Seaham to Hartlepool In Australia linc energy UCG wells were found to leak the same substances to groundwater as can be released by fracking resulting in a 320km zone be made around the plant. There are dangers of blowbacks and explosions. Many test have failed. It has never been used on a commercial basis. The gas produced is syngas or coal gas. It is a mixture of methane (natural gas), carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and hydrogen. They plan to pump it back into the hole they have made using Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). This is another process that has not been fully tested. Surely it would be better to use renewables and not produce the CO2 in the first place? There is of course the carrot of job creation. Any jobs created by UCG/fracking will be highly specialised. However, if the same amounts of money were to be invested in renewable energies and/or home and public building insulation, which the public have been shown to prefer as the majority of surveys have shown. There would be far more new jobs and far fewer environmental concern's. For more information see Frackfreehartlepool.co.uk

Bristol is now the second most congested city in the UK and pollution kills nearly 200 people a year. Yet in the last 3 years just 1 km of truly protected cycleway has been built. Bike Life survey shows that in Bristol – 80% of people support increasing the safety of cycling 70% of people want to see more spent on safer cycling infrastructure The next Council needs to make a comprehensive network of safe, connected cycle routes.a priority.

We are about to start a new build and have spent a year negotiating with SSEPD for an electricity connection. Their prices changed constantly, they sent the wrong contract to the Wayleaves team (the team that sort out the permissions with landowners) and then said that it was going to cost more because the works team had discovered a problem with the planned works on the quote. They say they won't tell us what the extra cost will be until they have done the work! So we have no idea if or what they might be planning to charge us on top of the amount we have already paid based on their quote.

George, real people are struggling to deal with the effects of fracking in communities all over the world. From contaminated water that is unsafe to drink, wash and bathe in, through to the effects of poor air quality on health, damage to local economies through to the loss of tourism and agriculture and the decimation of areas of outstanding beauty and scientific interest. Here is a video link you might care to watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3K0kV7UcME. Fracking requires large numbers of wells (usually 8 per square mile), huge quantities of water that will be forever poisoned, and industrial development of the English countryside on an unprecedented scale whilst causing and not preventing a rise in greenhouse gases (shale gas and oil are fossil fuels and so emit greenhouse gases - did you know?). George you have scrapped the Green Charter at a time when many of our European cousins are investing heavily in green technologies, making huge innovative strides in solar and other renewable technology and banning fracking because of its inherent risks and dangers. Still more countries have extended temporary bans due to their concerns, to allow more time to thoroughly assess the dangers. Others that have already suffered the negative consequences of fracking are now taking measures to prevent further fracking. Oh and by the way - I can see no evidence that fracking will drive prices down at home here in the UK. There is no guarantee that gas fracked in this country would be used here. We, as you well know, are part of a free market economy so gas will be sold wherever it will generate the largest profits. Those profits will go back to the corporates and their shareholders, not our economy unless, of course, we manage to close all those pesky off shore loop holes by the time those profits are made (Starbucks anyone?). Meanwhile with oil prices scraping the bottom of the proverbial barrel and the price of solar electricity falling fast, the likes of Citibank say big power stations could be redundant in 10 - 20 years’ time! What then will happen to the wells George? Who will be responsible for their upkeep and/or decommissioning and at what cost environmentally and economically?. Where will the contaminated water go? Perhaps you are hoping it will just seep neatly away into the cracks caused by fracking (along with the other 60% of water that 'goes missing' during the fracking process), that is assuming that the wells are even up and running by this deadline. Me? I like my water fresh from the tap, preferably uncontaminated. Fracking has the very real potential to adversely affect the food we eat, the water we drink, the air we breathe and the ground we walk on (remember the earthquakes George, that Cuadrilla admitted to causing?). Therefore we, the undersigned, request an immediate cessation to this Government's pro-fracking policies and any pro-fracking activity currently taking place until a thorough INDEPENDENT, cross party, scientific analysis and review has taken place with any research and conclusions reached made transparent and fully available to the public. We thank you for your earliest attention in this matter.

Unconventional gas exploitation - "fracking" - is a ridiculous idea. The Government's arguments used to justify fracking are as follows: That it will create jobs, that it’ll bring down energy bills, that it’s good for our energy security and it's a transition fuel to a green energy economy. 1. That it will create jobs. A Department for the Environment and Climate Change’s (DECC) report estimated a maximum of 24,300 of them. Yet 400,000 jobs could be created by 2020 by investment in the clean energy sector. 2. That it’ll bring down energy bills like it has in the US. But the UK’s geology is more complex than in the US, which means that the process here will be uneconomic. Even if that wasn’t the case, unlike the US, the UK exports gas as part of a European gas market, and as fracking companies will sell to the highest bidder of these European countries, there could never be a guarantee that UK energy users would be the beneficiaries. 3. That it’s good for our energy security A House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee recommendation was that shale gas should not be relied on to contribute to energy security. An energy security expert has said the best way to reduce energy security risks is to promote renewable power generation, improve energy efficiency and reduce overall energy demand. 4. A transition fuel to a green energy economy. Department for Energy and Climate Change-commissioned report on fracking’s greenhouse gas emissions has been shown to be based on poor data and exaggeration. When the actual figures are factored-in, the report shows that burning shale gas to produce electricity is about as bad as, or very possibly even worse than burning coal! The arguments against fracking are so numerous: The UK’s geology is too complex for fracking to be safe or economic. The UK’s geography means we don’t have America’s wide open spaces away from the population or agriculture. Water contamination. The UN has listed seven different ways this can occur. The huge quantities of water required. The carcinogenic properties of the chemicals used. Air pollution. Earthquakes. Industrialisation of countryside and loss of agricultural land to roads, well-pads, pipelines, compressor stations and so on. Traffic/chemical spills/noise and light pollution. Impact on tourism. Even if none of the above applied this doesn’t discount the big one – climate change. A growing number of climate change scientists are recognising that to have any chance of us staying below the two degree increase in global temperature that is required to avoid catastrophic climate change, we have to leave 80% of all already discovered fossil fuels in the ground. So why does this government want to find more of the stuff if we can’t burn it? Not all governments are hell bent on fracking - far from it. There are bans or moratoriums on fracking in France, Germany, many American states, and at least twelve other countries worldwide. And there are attractive alternatives, particularly for the UK as we have the best renewable energy resources in Europe. That’s where our energy security is - and the 400,000 jobs to get our economy back on track. A policy of support for fracking is a vote-loser. As elected representatives of Burnley we the community call on you to say no to fracking and yes to keeping Burnley frack free?

Unconventional gas exploitation - "fracking" - is a ridiculous idea. The Government's arguments used to justify fracking are as follows: That it will create jobs, that it’ll bring down energy bills, that it’s good for our energy security and it's a transition fuel to a green energy economy. 1. That it will create jobs. A Department for the Environment and Climate Change’s (DECC) report estimated a maximum of 24,300 of them. Yet 400,000 jobs could be created by 2020 by investment in the clean energy sector. 2. That it’ll bring down energy bills like it has in the US. But the UK’s geology is more complex than in the US, which means that the process here will be uneconomic. Even if that wasn’t the case, unlike the US, the UK exports gas as part of a European gas market, and as fracking companies will sell to the highest bidder of these European countries, there could never be a guarantee that UK energy users would be the beneficiaries. So the argument about not importing from Russia doesn't stand! 3. That it’s good for our energy security A House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee recommendation was that shale gas should not be relied on to contribute to energy security. An energy security expert has said the best way to reduce energy security risks is to promote renewable power generation, improve energy efficiency and reduce overall energy demand. 4. A transition fuel to a green energy economy. Department for Energy and Climate Change-commissioned report on fracking’s greenhouse gas emissions has been shown to be based on poor data and exaggeration. When the actual figures are factored-in, the report shows that burning shale gas to produce electricity is about as bad as, or very possibly even worse than burning coal! The arguments against fracking are so numerous: The UK’s geology is too complex for fracking to be safe or economic. The UK’s geography means we don’t have America’s wide open spaces away from the population or agriculture. Water contamination. The UN has listed seven different ways this can occur. The huge quantities of water required. The carcinogenic properties of the chemicals used. Air pollution. Earthquakes. Industrialisation of countryside and loss of agricultural land to roads, well-pads, pipelines, compressor stations and so on. Traffic/chemical spills/noise and light pollution. Impact on tourism. Even if none of the above applied this doesn’t discount the big one – climate change. A growing number of climate change scientists are recognising that to have any chance of us staying below the two degree increase in global temperature that is required to avoid catastrophic climate change, we have to leave 80% of all already discovered fossil fuels in the ground. So why does this government want to find more of the stuff if we can’t burn it? There are attractive alternatives, particularly for the UK as we have the best renewable energy resources in Europe. That’s where our energy security is - and the 400,000 jobs to get our economy back on track. A policy of support for fracking is a vote-loser. As elected representatives of Rossendale we the community call on you to say no to fracking and yes to keeping Rossendale and Darwenfrack free?

Much of this borough is semi rural. We do not want to see our green spaces industrialised with up to 8 wells per square mile. Our roads are congested enough without the massive increase in heavy traffic these developments would cause. Fracking can potentially lead to serious or widespread pollution of our water supplies. And there is the risk of air pollution too. High-profile doctors, pharmacists and public health academics want fracking banned! We do not want these risks near our homes and schools! It could reduce the value of our homes! We do not want to risk negative equity and losing the value of our hard work! We already risk dangerous climate change by the burning of just a fraction of the fossil fuels that we have found! Just what is the point of destroying our environment just to look for more? If we stick to the goals to limit global warming to 2degrees, we will never be able to burn shale gas!