• The Daily Mile: Don’t accept funding from fracking company INEOS
    Running a Daily Mile may be good for children’s health, but scientific studies suggest fracking is quite the opposite. A recent comprehensive report stated that fracking threatens the health of local residents "1 Growing evidence shows that [fracking] regulations are simply not capable of preventing harm" "2 Fracking and the disposal of fracking waste threaten drinking water" "3 Drilling and fracking contribute to toxic air pollution and smog (ground-level ozone) at levels known to have health impacts." http://concernedhealthny.org/compendium/ Not only that, fracking has been shown to have a detrimental effect on climate change, endangering children’s health and lives for years to come “World may hit 2 degrees of warming in 10-15 Years thanks to fracking”, Says Cornell Scientist https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/04/11/climate-change-two-degree-warming-fracking-natural-gas-rush-ingraffea For more information about INEOS Ineos 'misled' public over fracking in Sherwood Forest https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/05/ineos-fracking-robin-hood-sherwood-forest?CMP=share_btn_tw Desmog Uk background on INEOS http://www.desmog.co.uk/ineos
    140 of 200 Signatures
    Created by Oliver Swingler Picture
  • Old brick heaters
    it is important to reduce energy consumption to save the environment as well as reducing costs of overall electric use so the poorest people can survive and live happy lives
    64 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Andrew oconnor
    There are Elderly and Disabled people in Holt they are liable to fall hurting themselves due to the poor light these Obsolete Lamposts give out so get them removed and replaced now!!
    3 of 100 Signatures
    Created by 765 Action Committee Holt Norfolk Picture
  • Castle Ward Air Quality Petition | Colchester Green Party
    Colchester Green Party have been monitoring levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in a number of locations in Castle Ward. Five areas exceeded the World Health Organisation's recommended safety limit of 40 micrograms per cubic metre. These high levels of NO2 pose a serious health threat to the public, particularly residents living in the following areas: St Botolphs Street - 52.72 East Street (Ipswich Road junction) - 60.74 North Station Road - 58.02 East Street - 52.76 East Hill (Priory Street Junction) - 44.17 We therefore call upon the Colchester Borough Council to decrease the levels of pollution, starting with the implementation of our three proposals. These proposals would encourage drivers to consider alternative modes of transport (cycling and walking), deter drivers from idling, and incentivise electrification of motor vehicles.
    91 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Matt Stemp
    Southern Water seek to gain Michael Gove’s approval to increase river abstraction to levels NEVER SEEN BEFORE. Climate change is exacerbating the situation. We desperately need alternative & timely options to supply public water. The internationally rare English chalk stream riverine habitats & their wildlife are now under severe threat from over abstraction, especially in times of drought. This could prove catastrophic for species such as the genetically unique chalk stream salmon, sea trout, or Hampshire’s last population of the rare native crayfish, let alone the rivers themselves & the livelihoods that depend upon them. We must stop Southern Water using a Public Inquiry to gain Michael Gove’s approval to increase river abstraction to potentially catastrophic and reprievable levels. They intend to sidestep the correct procedure and ride roughshod over our public bodies, which are there to safeguard our environment. Challenging Natural England’s advice & the EA's sustainable licensing to increase abstraction to ruinous levels on our precious chalk streams, in order to meet their corporate goals – profit. We desperately need alternative, sustainable and timely options to supply public water. Action NOW is essential to ensure our rivers are properly protected in the future. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the Hampshire Wildlife Trust, Natural England, Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) Hampshire, Salmon & Trout Conservation, Wild Trout Trust, Test and Itchen Association, Angling Trust and Fish Legal, and the Wessex Chalk streams and Rivers Trust, all oppose Southern Water’s position. HOW? Beginning 13th March, Southern Water through public inquiry are asking Michael Gove (Secretary of State) to approve their increased abstraction plans directly. If upheld, this will by-pass the normal procedures for obtaining an abstraction licence, and will not involve full public consultation including direct and fair engagement with river owners and users - an absolutely CRUCIAL involvement as there is so much at stake in these very complex decisions. SW are using ‘strong arm’ tactics in the Inquiry to make the EA use their legal powers to force river owners and users to co-operate. Some of these proposed actions are highly emotive and again deny the public the fair right to comment. WHAT OTHER DAMAGE COULD THIS CAUSE? Increasing populations and housing in Hampshire are greater than our natural water resources can now sustain. Demand has already exceeded the capacity our rivers and aquifers can supply. So at a time of water scarcity, on already over abstracted rivers, the threat is that SWS customers will be literally sucking the life out of the rivers Candover, Itchen and Test. This will deplete the river flows to levels that will devastate the natural aquatic environment. People will be watering their gardens as the flow of these rivers falls to dangerously unprecedented levels. Is this what people would want if they knew about it? THE SOLUTION - As we speak, Southern Water are preparing to publish a 'draft Water resources management plan' (and Drought Plan) for public consultation. They claim their plans will have a bold vision, with ambitious and innovative ways to secure the necessary alternative sources of supply to enable the Environment Agency’s licence changes to be made. These alternatives will be costly and include trading with Portsmouth Water, Havant Thicket Reservoir and a desalination plant in the Solent. That is what it will take to protect our Chalk streams from over abstraction. HOWEVER, SOUTHERN WATER WILL ONLY IMPLEMENT THESE AMBITIOUS NEW PLANS IF IT LOSES THE INQUIRY! If it wins then it may well in likelihood implement a shadow version... This Inquiry is Southern Water’s last-ditch attempt to cling onto its 40-year-old business model of over exploiting our chalk streams – one that generates a healthy profit margin at huge expense to the environment. TO CONCLUDE - No more stalling by this corporate Leviathan, which is investing large amounts of bill payers’ money on scientific models not fit for purpose to prove their 'case'. Instead they should be working together with and not against NGO’s, stakeholders, their clients and you the people to find alternative water supplies that will safeguard our rivers for generations to come. Please help support the EA's and NE's efforts to protect our rivers by signing our petition to ensure that Southern Water Services take note of their customers’ concerns for the sustainability and protection of these British gems. Many Thanks, Jim & Howard. "The proposed increase in water abstraction from the Test, Itchen & Candover will have a serious, if not disastrous, effect on the delicate balance of this unique ecosystem. We obviously need to meet the water needs of our ever-expanding population but there are less harmful ways to do this. The true chalk streams are only found in Britain (apart from a small presence in Normandy); we are custodians of these precious jewels & we owe it to our children and grandchildren not to undermine them" PAUL WHITEHOUSE - Comedian & fisherman. SW's turnover last year was approx £800 million, with a profit of more than £250 million. Their divis to corporate shareholders were somewhere over £100 million. Thankfully their operations and behaviour are now being scrutinised. See BBC news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43139857 Documents for the public enquiry - http://www.hwa.uk.com/projects/itchen-candover-and-testwood-water-abstraction-inquiry/ Photo by Charles Rangeley Wilson
    5,775 of 6,000 Signatures
    Created by Jim Murray and Howard Taylor
  • Shire Hall Mold lights out night
    Because schools funds have been cut 6 percent but the council don't mind wasting our money on electric.
    17 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Philip Formby
  • No new opencast coal mines in Durham, UK.
    No new opencast coal mines have started in England since 2013. Since then the Government has said that it will phase-out coal by 2025. It's vital that we prevent a new mine starting which would cause local and international environmental destruction and which the local community have clearly rejected. Bradley is a greenfield site in County Durham between the villages of Dipton and Leadgate. The site supports a wealth of plants and animals, including Great Crested Newts, badgers, red kites. Banks Group plan to mine 550,000 tonnes of coal from the site, starting work this spring. The Bradley opencast mine is a case where the original decision to grant planning was grossly wrong and the development is likely to damage the wider public interest. Since the planning permission was granted in June 2015 there have been significant changes in national and international policy with regards to coal and climate change. 1) Coal use in the UK has dropped to 7% of the UK’s energy mix compared with 30% in 2014. 2) The government has said it will phase-out coal by 2025. 3) The UK and Canadian governments want to be world leaders with their Powering Past Coal Alliance. 4) The Paris Agreement requires that action is taken to prevent global temperatures from raising by 2 degrees and pursue efforts to keep them from a 1.5 degree raise. Thomas Davison, 28-year-old a resident living 300 metres away from the proposed opencast site said; “Banks' desire to extract 550,000 tonnes of coal is driven by nothing more than profit and not at all by a genuine need for energy. We have moved onto other forms of cleaner energy for the good of our global climate. So why is it worth harming the local wildlife and the local economy for one last money grab?”
    89,470 of 100,000 Signatures
    Created by Coal Action Network Picture
  • Chelmsford Developments & Local Plan (Incl. Beaulieu Park)
    We do not accept the level of power that is given to the developers of our city. We demand that all new housing developments should have both insulated buildings AND renewable energy. This requirement should not be dropped because of 'urban design'. We do not accept unsustainable development that contributes to climate change; our communities need clean energy, transport links, and schools, doctors surgeries and amenities.
    24 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Sarah Clark
    If everyone who saw this, signed and shared it would achieve its objective within the hour! NO WASTE INCINERATOR IN CAMBRIDGE: PROTECT OUR AIR QUALITY AND PUBLIC HEALTH Unborn babies, infants and children are most at risk from incinerator emissions research has proven. Waste incinerators are associated with direct causal links to all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and mortality from lung cancer, higher rates of adult and childhood cancer, birth defects, increased respiratory hospital admissions, a range of emotional and behavioural problems in children, learning difficulties, and delinquency, cell level genetic changes which pose a risk to future generations , and in problems in adults including violence, dementia, depression and Parkinson’s disease, after adjustment for other factors. These findings come from a wide variety of peer reviewed research, meta-analysis and reports conducted by The World Health Organisation (WHO), British Heart Foundation, British Lung Foundation, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health, The British Society for Ecological Medicine, DEFRA, Asthma UK, Client Earth. All conclude that incinerators should NOT be approved. This directly affects your health and that of your family and friends. Don’t say you weren’t warned! YOUR VOICE MATTERS and IT DOES COUNT. If approved against all advice from world leading environment, climate change and health advisory bodies, Cambridge air pollution WILL increase, forever, with significant and predictable life threatening and life changing health consequences for many, particularly affecting the most vulnerable youngest members of society. Amey Cespa proposes a £200M waste incinerator in Cambridge that will burn 250,000 tonnes commercial and household waste /yr, from 5 counties incl. Isle of Wight (selling surplus to China), fed at this rate minimum to justify investment. AC already provides facilities for waste recycling, composting, landfill and mechanical biological treatment. Yes, it proposes energy for 45,000 homes and 300 jobs during construction and operations but does that justify proven and predictable health effects above? Read them again – all-cause mortality, cancer, mental health, adverse effects in unborn babies, infants and children who by nature are in a biological window of vulnerability. AC submitted their application 20th Dec for a 21 day public consultation, just before the busiest holiday period of the year. They have followed min. statutory requirements to notify the public. For such a major infrastructure application that presents enormous city wide public health and environmental impact, providing 2 short notice site public information meetings (advertised briefly in neighbouring villages) and 2 recent short notice neighbouring parish council meetings, it does appear like AC would rather prefer the application flew very much under the public radar. The UK and Cambridge has a problem with waste management but if incineration is the answer, somebody asked the wrong question. Waste incineration in Cambridge will produce an unprecedented health risk for people living in and around the city, air pollution WILL increase and forever with significant and predictable health consequences. AC cannot guarantee that waste incineration is safe for public health. Toxin emissions and particulate pollution have to go somewhere. EC reports advise reducing NOT increasing air pollution to reduce and prevent land, coast and sea ecosystem damage due to acidification, thus also protecting water, food chains and organic farmers. There is already local evidence of significant health impacts from the AC Cambridge waste management site. 2016- AC was fined by Cambridge magistrates £50,000 for causing sickness and adverse effects on human health, and prior to these incidents, received 3 enforcement notices 2015 by the Environment Agency. ‘AC fined £50,000’ by F Snoad, Cambridge Evening News, Sep 2016. The environment agency continues to receive regular calls reporting problems with air quality relating to this site. Local newspapers have reported ongoing problems with local residents and workers complaining of feeling sick, gagging, wheezing, sore eyes and throats, constant unpleasant smells causing them to have to keep windows shut. ‘The waste park is poisoning us: Cambridgeshire villagers concern at Amey recycling centre’ by Samar Maguire, Cambridge Evening News, Sep 2017. It is enshrined in EC and UK legislation that reducing emissions produces true health benefits, prevents unnecessary burden on healthcare, and protects against the impacts of acid air and water on local and wide ranging ecosystems including land, coast and sea. Costs of incineration, together with research investigating nonstandard emissions from incinerators, has demonstrated that the hazards of incineration are greater than previously realised including that relating to fine and ultrafine particulates. Operating waste incinerators in urban areas results in dangerous health and environmental consequences from both construction and operation. The accumulated evidence on the health risks of incinerators is simply too strong to ignore and their use in Cambridge cannot be justified now that better, cheaper and far less hazardous methods of waste disposal have become available. The planned chimney stack height is out of keeping with surrounding local village architecture and the Fenland landscape: contravening NPPF guidelines. The proposed site is greenfield which will potentially be adjacent to major new residential areas. Waste minimisation, recycling and composting through innovation and behavioural change are the answer not incineration and certainly not in urban areas. Residents of Cambridge have human right to clean air and their health protected.
    2,506 of 3,000 Signatures
    Created by Jude Sutton
  • Green de-restriction speed stripe
    There are far too many deaths and accidents on rural roads and much time and energy and money goes into debates and changes in Communities and Councils all over the United Kingdom. Meanwhile we have the same black on white stripe sign on hugely varying stretches of road which gives a 60 mile blanket de-restriction. I am proposing a Green stripe replace the black on the sign on roads which have all or some of the following hazards, particularly prevalent in rural areas :- The road has many bends where vision is restricted, is too narrow in places for 2 cars to pass, has no pavement but is used regularly by walkers, cyclists and horse riders, particularly when part of a bridleway follows it on the ordinance Survey map, farmers drive sheep and cattle along it from field to field, the road is used heavily by farm vehicles of all sizes as well as all other types of road user. It is the main through-fare for communities. I am proposing that the maximum speed limit would be dropped to 40 or 50, but this is for debate as well as a No Overtaking except of stationary vehicles rule. Communities across the UK could then apply for this new category of driving limit in their area which would require no extra signs, just a very bright green rather than Black stripe and would be Nationally recogniseable. I am sure that many people as in our community have their own stories of fatalities and near misses and would welcome a solution that would at least give drivers a slightly different rule and understanding of the road they find themselves on.
    11 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Jane Durrant
  • Solar Panels must be included on all new build houses.
    To reduce our reliance on fossil and nuclear fuel. It will also improve the technology and make it cheaper to retro fit to existing homes.
    27 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Chris Pickering
  • Bring back Onshore wind energy
    Onshore wind energy is our most abundant and cost effective form of renewable energy, and until it was banned by the previous government it was our most successful. It remains highly popular with opinions polls (including the government’s own) showing almost three quarters of the public support it - this support has been consistent for the last 20 years. With energy bills in Britain generally regarded as being too high and our government proposing a cap to address the issue - it makes no sense to pay considerably more than we need to for new forms of green energy. Fighting climate change with green energy is essential, we should not make it more expensive than it needs to be. A recent report from the ECIU (Energy and Climate Change Intelligence Unit) estimates that we will pay over £1 billion more on our energy bills - over just the next four years - if we continue to exclude onshore wind energy. Onshore wind is an economic and environmental opportunity for Britain.
    1,554 of 2,000 Signatures
    Created by Dale Vince Picture