We, the undersigned, care deeply about the arts, and equally the natural environment and the rights of humans around the world. We believe arts and cultural institutions should break their ties with oil companies such as BP, a company which has caused repeated environmental catastrophes, including the Deepwater Horizon spill, and been implicated in numerous human rights violations. Furthermore, BP is turning a profit on the continued extraction of dirty fossil fuels, pushing us towards runaway climate change, whilst lobbying against environmental laws and clean energy alternatives [1, 2]. By accepting sponsorship from BP, cultural institutions give the oil giant much-needed positive publicity, and help it to obscure the destructive reality of its activities with a veneer of respectability. At the same time, oil sponsorship taints the reputation of the institutions that accept it. We recognise the vital importance of arts funding, particularly after public funding cuts. However BP sponsorship provides less than 1% of the annual income of the British Museum, Tate, and Royal Opera House, and just 3% of the income of the National Portrait Gallery [3], yet BP are allowed to place their name and logo alongside the names of these institutions, on their website and in exhibitions (despite many artists and arts workers having strong views against such branding) [4, 5]. BP needs these institutions far more than they need BP. This is the 26th year that BP has sponsored the Portrait Awards, through an agreement with the National Portait Gallery (NPG) in London. Fortunately this agreement is due to end this year. The NPG could choose not to renew the agreement, and to find a more appropriate sponsor for the Portrait Awards. However, negotiations about renewal are already underway. The NPG will not drop BP as a sponsor without strong pressure from the public and the arts sector. We need to act now. Over its 26 years of sponsorship, BP has repeatedly caused great harms to the environment and people; it has been responsible for multiple deadly explosions and oil spillages, including that of Deepwater Horizon, which killed 11 people, decimated ecosystems and livelihoods in the Gulf of Mexico, and resulted in the largest corporate fine in history [6]. It has traded with oppressive regimes from Azerbaijan to Libya, and has even been implicated in torture in Colombia [7]. It has recently expanded into tar sands, an extreme form of energy production which contaminates water and tramples on indigenous rights [8]. Worldwide, fossil fuel companies have currently laid claim to five times the volume of oil, gas and coal that humanity can burn without causing dangerous and destructive levels of global warming [9] - despite this, BP has stated that it will continue to explore and exploit new reserves of oil and gas into the future. In 1989, the National Portrait Gallery ended its eight-year Portrait Award sponsorship agreement with tobacco company John Player [10]. It is time for this national cultural institution to show such moral leadership and forward-thinking once again, by cutting ties with BP. As a partner of the National Portrait Gallery, the Scottish National Portrait Gallery can influence this decision. We call on this respected national cultural institution to put pressure on the NPG to find a more appropriate sponsor, and to refuse to host the BP Portrait Awards until a new sponsor has been found. For more information, please see: http://bp-or-not-bp.org/ http://bp-or-not-bp.org/scotland http://platformlondon.org/p-publications/picturethis/ References 1. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/may/02/bp-deepwater-horizon-oil-spills 2. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/21/bp-tops-the-list-of-firms-obstructing-climate-action-in-europe 3. http://platformlondon.org/p-publications/artoilinfographic/ 4. http://fossilfundsfree.org/who/ 5. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/24/no-oil-painting-bp-sponsorship-npg-portrait-award 6. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/02/bp-will-pay-largest-environmental-fine-in-us-history-for-gulf-oil-spill 7. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/22/gilberto-torres-survived-colombias-death-squads-now-he-wants-justice 8. http://environmentaldefence.ca/reports/canadas-toxic-tar-sands-most-destructive-project-earth 9. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719 10. http://platformlondon.org/p-publications/picturethis/ 11. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-risks-as-conclusive-as-link-between-smoking-and-lung-cancer/

If we are to stop global warming we need to move away from a Fossil Fuelled society to a world which exists on renewable energies. Renewable energies receive little or no subsidy, whereas Mega Rich MNCs receive millions of £'s in of taxpayers money in the form of subsidies from the British Government. Whereas in reality subsidies should be directed to help with the development of renewable energy services as well as helping people living in fuel poverty become recipients of renewable energies.

We are concerned that fracking could: • Contaminate our water supply • Pollute the air with hazardous chemicals • Cause earthquakes • Reduce the value of our homes • Increase our insurance premiums • Make our roads less safe by increasing heavy traffic • Leak methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide • Cause illness in local populations • Increase noise and light pollution from drilling operations and traffic movement. Fracking is bad for our environment, bad for our communities and we call upon Barnsley Council to reject fracking in Barnsley.

We are told that Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking) will create jobs and lower your energy prices. While this is extremely debatable and has been discredited by many authorities, there are many other environmental and economic facts to be considered. The detrimental effects of Fracking are well documented. Some of the key facts are as follows: Fracking increases local air pollution An increase in risk of pollution to local drinking water supplies Possible Risks of seismic activity Threatens natural habitats Fracking generates massive amounts of greenhouse gases Investments in Fracking blocks the development of renewable energy Increased traffic on roads from site vehicles Potential to lower the value of your house if located near a site for the above reasons Scotland, France and Germany have already banned Fracking. Please help give your support by signing this petition to let the local government that Amber Valley's constituents wish it to remain a Frack free area. Please also see details of our first meeting here: https://www.facebook.com/events/568058916702507/ Or here: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/events/fracking-in-amber-valley

Fracking gets a lot of attention and rightly so. THere are the environmental aspects of the government striving to grow the burning of fossil fuels of which 'Frackgas' is one of them. The pollution aspect is even more painful with metals such as; arsenic, mercury, cadmium being brought to the surface for clean up. The cost to the communities will be through a massive cost to the Water companies who will pass these additional costs on to their customers. Millions of tonnes of chemical impregnated water will be used in the 'frackgas' operation and it will all need to be treated. Where will the cleaned pollutant residue end up? We have yet to gain an answer to this. Let us look at the visual impact. Stoke on Trent could end up with some 30 derricks blotting the landscape. We know that we have miles upon miles of coal bed methane trapped under our city and towns. There is this licence for 'Frackgas' or the dangerous technique of fracking coal bed methane. This is your country: Protect It

To describe the UKs nuclear waste site as a “Repository” is putting a spin on the UKs main nuclear dump for "low level" waste. There is "controlled discharge direct to the Irish Sea" not to mention run off to the Drigg Stream and River Irt. Discharges to the air of radioactive gases are ongoing. According to the British Geological Society the Drigg site is above a regional aquifer. It is also "likely to be destroyed by coastal erosion" in 500 to 5000 years (computer modelling can be wrong either way) . Much of the waste is long lived and high risk. Below are a few of the reasons why it is important that Cumbria County Council Lock the Gate on Drigg: Planning Application PL\1508\05 (4/15/9012):The phased construction of additional vaults, higher stacking of containers..capping.. 1. Drigg Low Level Waste Repository (the word nuclear was dropped so as not to scare the horses) would continue to accept nuclear waste for decades to come. "Capping" is misleading. To cap” a nuclear dump is akin to putting a cap on a fizzy lemonade bottle while there are holes in the bottom of the bottle. The site will continue to leach aqueous emissions to groundwater and gaseous emissions to air. 2. LOW LEVEL: This suggests that the waste at Drigg is low risk and short lived. Neither is true. As the University of Reading has pointed out: “The Drigg site uses two disposal systems: 1) An original system operated from 1959 to 1988 comprising a series of parallel trenches excavated into glacial clays, back filled with LLW and covered with an interim water resistant cap. 2) Current disposal of compacted waste placed in steel ISO-freight containers, with void space filled with highly fluid cement based grout. These containers are then disposed of in a series of open concrete vaults. Radionuclides with highest activities in the inventory include 3H, 241Pu, 137Cs, 234U and 90Sr, 238U and 232Th. http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/16608/1/mrspaper.pdf 3. RADIOACTIVE FLY TIPPING: The chemical and nuclear dump site has moved on from the years 1940 to 1988 when chemical and radioactive waste was tumble tipped into trenches. Now the waste is compacted into steel shipping containers filled with cement. Incredibly the containers are stacked high. In 2013 the LLW management wrote: “in containers at the tops of stacks, the external capping grout has 
undergone extensive physical degradation and settlement; the lids are not full of grout, and the grout is generally heavily cracked. The state of the capping grout in underlying layers is better; most containers only show sparse cracking and typical settlement in the lid is approximately 15 mm. Standing water, sometimes contaminated with low levels of radioactivity, is present in approximately half of the containers at the tops of stacks. ..In containers at the tops of stacks, organic matter has accumulated beneath many open grout ports, with vegetation growing from some grout ports. ..Corrosion, sometimes fully penetrating, is present in some container lids at the tops of stacks…” http://llwrsite.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/30-RP-LLWRGR-PROJ-0139-Vault-8-Container-Issues-Project-MAS.pdf 4. FLOODWATER AND SEA INUNDATION: “The Environment Agency has given a formal view that “the potential for disruption of the site is an acceptable risk” By “disruption of the site” they mean inundation by sea and flood. This is a far cry from the Environment Agency's previous criticism in 2005: "BNFL (Now the NDA) has not yet demonstrated that the wider benefits to the UK from continued LLW disposal on this site outweigh the potential future impacts" We would hope that Cumbria County Council agree with the Environment Agency's 2005 findings that that the real and present threat of inundation of the Drigg site by flood or by sea is not an acceptable risk to the people of Cumbria or to our international neighbours. 5. THE COLLAPSE in 1985 of the largest black-headed gull breeding colony in Europe on the Drigg dunes has never been satisfactorily explained. The official explanation is that a fox did it! https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2015/12/29/disappearing-trick-birds-and-nuclear-waste/ 6. CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIA is officially blamed on "population mixing" due to the influx of workers firstly to the 1940 explosives factory (Royal Ordnance Factory) at Drigg and then the ROF at Sellafield. The irony of this incredible argument is that the plan for 3 new nuclear reactors at ' Moorside' a few miles from Drigg ('Moorside' is at the village of Beckermet) would involve a boom and bust influx of thousands of workers along with a further tsunami of nuclear wastes and ever more Driggs. https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-moorside-biggest-nuclear-development-in-europe Many of the Councillors expressed serious concerns at the meeting and yet the vote was unanimously in favour which, to campaigners and the wider public, smacks of something very fishy indeed. To rely on the testament of the Environment Agency who merely look at the information provided to them by the industry is reckless. All projections and computer modelling are based on information provided by the operators. Much of the Drigg site is already unable to be accessed for monitoring due to the stacking of containers. At the planning meeting on 15th July 2016 There was no discussion of a. the increased possibility of criticality with an ever increasing radiological burden. The words criticality “will not occur” cannot be applied to Drigg's LLWR : https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2016/08/02/drigg-decision-we-are-caught-in-a-trap-no-way-out-because-we-love-nuclear-waste-too-much/ b. the ethics of denying future generations the right to protect themselves, c. whether to warn future generations not to dig or distrurb the poisonous chalice beneath the land. d. the ethics of adding to an already intolerable radioactive burden on this vulnerable coastal site.

Although the scientific community have understood the dangers we face in climate change this is only just beginning to filter into the general public. MPs seem to be very loath to understand the issues. People have been saying fracking is safe rather than understanding that it is another fossil fuel and will contribute to global warming. Its short term safety is irrelevant. Why not spend our time and energy cleverly to produce the gas for our carbon neutral future. Invest in the small because we understand the big picture. Who are the lobbyists that persuade our MPs to allow our landscape to be ransacked for something that will only encourage more extreme climate events? Biomass gas could be an income stream for our farmers and Councils while giving us a carbon neutral gas. Invest now in our long term future - not in a fossil fuel.

Members of the public find it difficult to support a political party 100%. Our system is out of date, our MPs out of touch, the public go unheard. We agree with points made by the Lib Dems, the Conservatives, Labour, the Green Party, the SNP etc and sometimes we disagree with them all. Either way we can't communicate with the government effectively. The system needs to work for us all but instead it's dusty, nobody really understands it or cares to sort it out with any long term vision. We need to start again. Simplify. Direct questions, direct answers. If regular referendums were to take place, the public are truly part of the process, allowing us to demonstrate what we care about, that we're united and want to invest in the future of this land and it's people. Less moaning and more doing, having a proactive and fair say, feeling satisfied that the decisions are being made and supported by the majority of the UK. Let the UK public vote for their future. This Kingdom can then begin to feel proud and respected, and most importantly, united.

Fracking is opposed by so many people across the country and yet the government won't listen to our protests. Theyre not listening to demonstrations and theyre not listening to local councils. But there is one thing they listen to: money. If we tell energy suppliers we won't buy from them if they deal in fracked shale gas, then they won't buy it. If no one buys it, it won't be financially viable and then maybe the government will finally understand that we the people can't be ignored on this issue! We need to act fast, before fracking starts in the UK.

As a nineteen year old there have been many things that I have experienced so far in my life. We all in someway have gone though a lot that we unfortunately had no help with or anyone there to to comfort us and tell us that its going to be okay. You have the good memories that we cling to so dearly, and then there are those which are not so great. Events that should have never even taken place, especially for those so young and vulnerable. The bad memories where you think I wish I would have known ‘this’ or ‘that’ then maybe I would have not been so lost and helpless in that situation. If that were the case you could have been somewhere else today. A lot of our youth nowadays are susceptible to making very life-changing decisions or mistakes that they were not warned or aware of as they were growing up. Our education system is so set on Sex Education being improved constantly and carrying out classes to younger and younger ages each year. In doing so each generation is thinking more about sex in contrast to accomplishing a fully content life with healthy relationships amongst friends, families and significant others. Instead we end up with unsatisfied young men and women who seek happiness in the wrong things and places, they take their loved ones for granted, push their family away and allow the road to anti-social behaviour and depression to creep in where it seems almost impossible for the individual to ever be happy with anything or anyone. My aim for this petition is to launch the start of Relationship Education classes for young people. Where we can teach children the values of trust, respect, loyalty, communication, love, and integrity in the right way. From being raised in a single parent family I saw my mother in the most damaging ways as a child. I saw her beaten by men and women, I saw her heartbroken numerous times, she was also very angry with the world. But the one thing I would see in her for the most part compared to everything else was of course disappointment. She would always weep and wonder why she never saw certain things coming or how she wishes she would have done things differently or maybe to have not done anything at all. Relationship classes should have been put in place a long time ago, God knows so many of us would have benefited highly from them. Classes where we can help guide our youth, pave out the road to success and point them in the right direction is something that should be encouraged not thrown to the side. Good relationships with others should hold far more importance than Sex Education which I do still believe is essential to be taught but definitely not more significant than building a happy community with one another. I believe these classes will help our schools to see a dramatic drop in bullying, absences and insecurities. Through this scheme we will teach mutual respect, the correct manner to communicate with one another and to avoid unkind comments or gestures that would hurt your peer in any way. In addition to this procedure we will have gained a large increase in sociable engagement with other peers, good attendance, confident individuals, an expansion on creativity and most of all a happy class. Not only will this benefit children during school time but the life skills they will attain will be practiced in the comfort of their own home, with family and friends, through college, university, in the workplace and so on.

In making these industries exempt, the funding has to come from elsewhere. The Conservative government has made it clear that it will not finance renewable energy off its own back, so funding will instead be passed on to regular households. The Government proposes to withdraw support for short-term funding (the next 4-5 years) of renewable technologies like solar panels and wind turbines as they are concerned it will add £ 7 p.a. to consumers energy bills which is unacceptable. Households will see their bills increase by £5 a year for the next four years to fund this exemption, at a total cost of £20 added to household bills. What has also been revealed is that projected savings from “reforming” (closing) the renewable obligation and feed-in tariff (renewable energy support schemes) will save households a total of £17 over the same period. Clearly, this action does not fit with the Governments intention to save consumers money on their energy bills as this action actually increases consumer energy bills. Renewable energy industries benefit communities, reduce wholesale future electrical energy costs and reduce pollution, making the environment a better place for current and future generations. Money used to support these schemes will now be passed as "Levy Control Framework Exemptions" (tax breaks) to high energy busines users - who pollute the planet and cause pollution related illnesses. The European Commission has aggregated a list of industries it considers intensive users of energy. That list, includes but is not limited to industries such as the mining of hard coal and the manufacture of refined petroleum products. On the face of it, it looks as if savings made from the feed-in tariff are being handed straight to large energy users to make sure they can survive the kind of difficult business environment the government is creating for domestic solar. It’s a galling prospect, and one that flies completely against any ‘the polluter pays’ principle put across in environmental law. “Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children” Please sign this petition to let George Osborne know we want a clean environment for our children and not to give money used to support clean energy industries away to support polluting fossil fuel companies. More details on the link below, but please read the quote below the link from Carl Sagan - a famous astronomer who was moved to write about the last image of our planet, taken as a Voyager satelite left our galaxy : http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/editors_blog/fit_cut_savings_all_but_handed_to_potential_polluters_under_eii_2592 “From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of particular interest. But for us, it's different. Consider again that dot. That's here, that's home, that's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand. It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.” ― Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot:

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.