We wish to maintain the beauty ,tranquility and uniqueness that our Island of Sark is privileged to have . We feel the siting of a wind turbine with a height of 77m (252 ft) to top of turbine rotor would be completely out of charecter for our Island . Not to mention the noise to local residents and the danger to birdlife .

Smoking is bad for your health but it only affects you- right? There are at least 124 million cigarettes butts put into the environment every single day in the UK alone. Globally this figure nears 6 trillion cigarettes per year. Nearly all (95%) of cigarette filters are made from cellulose acetate- a plastic which persists in the environment for over a decade. A recent report from NBC news showed that cigarette butts were the biggest man-made contaminant in the world's oceans, not plastic bags nor plastic straws. This is one of the largest sources of plastic pollution in the world so it needs to be tackled as fast as possible. Biodegradable cigarettes do exist. Greenbutts is an organisation that has created the world’s first biodegradable cigarette filter, made from natural products such as hemp and cotton. The solution is out there but it needs to be put into practice. Natural parks and beaches are some of the UK's greatest assets. But walk through any single one and you will see cigarette butts. Not only do they spoil natural beauty, ingestion of plastics by animals can be incredibly harmful by disrupting immune systems and causing disease. On top of all this, they cost tax payer money. For example, the City of London spend £3.8 million cleaning the streets of cigarette butts every year. This could be used for other public services which have their own funding issues. This problem is well recognised in the scientific literature and many newspaper articles have been written. And yet, no government action has been done. Sign this petition to make Michael Gove realise how much the British public cares about the environment and how urgently change is needed.

Millions of marine creatures are being killed every year due to plastic waste entering the ocean

This is a serious animal welfare issue. Hundreds of thousands of people trust the Soil Association certificate and expect to be buying an ethical product when they buy something with their mark on. The way these animals are being treated is not ethical and therefore discredits the Soil Association name.

Because our NHS is strapped for cash and this would be an easy way to save it money, but also saving paper, which can only be good for us.

Currently plastic bags must go in landfill bins.

For the environment. We are just damaging it too much. Our product "cycles" are not cycles.

It will reduce accidents and keep the traffic flow easier. Also as it has eight exits it will make it easier for pedestrians to cross the roads.

If we carry on as we are there is going to be more plastic in the sea than fish!

Making it compulsory for companies to have to receive their packaging back would change the waste and pollution problem faster - as they would be held accountable for what they are selling and how they are selling to the public. It would force them to make important changes internally to tackle the waste and pollution crisis. They would also potentially be able to offer refillable products at a discount that would not only save the public / consumers money, but would also solve part of problems of the waste crisis in a more long-term way.

People are trapped in their own homes because of the water rising. It has got to point that people can’t even have food to eat, kids have been starving for the whole day, because the waters are to high to get food. Many people have even lost their homes because of the water eroding the foundations away from the walls. Many people are missing because of the flooding and rock slides. The water has reached up to the second level of the house and people are left with inches away from death, left with no hope.

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide on the market. Herbicides containing glyphosate are sold under a variety of names, and are made by a large number of different manufacturers, but the most well known is RoundUp, made by Monsanto. Gardeners and farmers choose to use glyphosate herbicides because they are both very effective, and have a very low toxicity to people and animals. Despite the fact that there is very clear scientific evidence that herbicides containing glyphosate are safe, and don't cause cancer (see sources at the bottom), and even though multiple well-respected international scientific bodies have examined all of the evidence and also concluded there is no link between glyphosate and cancer, a jury in California decided that a man's cancer was caused by it. As a result companies like B&Q and Homebase are considering removing glyphosate herbicides from their shelves. Waitrose is already doing it. If glyphosate herbicides are taken away, gardeners and farmers will have no alternative but to switch to other, more toxic herbicides, like pyraflufen ethyl (2x more toxic than glyphosate), dicamba (about 6 times more toxic than glyphosate), or diquat (almost 40 times more toxic than glyphosate). As a gardener, I use glyphosate for weed control, particularly invasive, difficult to get rid of ones like Ground Elder and Bindweed. Farmers are increasingly using it as part of no-till farming, to avoid having to break up soil which leads to soil degradation and erosion. Why should my health and well-being, and the safety of my family be put at risk by knee-jerk responses to a poorly made judgement in a foreign court? Gardeners and farmers should be allowed to decide for ourselves if we want to continue to use RoundUp and other glyphosate herbicides, rather than having it imposed on us. Courts are not good places to determine scientific issues. Juries can be swayed by emotions (a dying man vs a large faceless, not particularly trusted corporation), and because juries don’t generally consist of scientific experts, and therefore, like the rest of us, they aren't in a position to properly evaluate scientific evidence, particularly in a courtroom where they're under pressure to try and decide between 2 competing stories. So when the science says glyphosate is safe, I believe companies should trust the science, rather than relying on a single flawed court case that is being appealed. Sources: - Andreotti et al. 2017. A large, long-term cohort study with over 50,000 participants that wasn’t funded by Monsanto, which failed to find an association between glyphosate use and cancer among farmers. - Mink et al. 2012. A meta-analysis of 21 cohort and case-controlled studies in humans concluded that there is "no consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer (in adults or children) or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate". - Regulatory oversight agencies in the US, Europe and elsewhere in the world, including the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (acting on behalf of European Commission and European Food Safety Authority), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization Core Assessment Group, the European Union, the World Health Organization International Programme on Chemical Safety, the EPA, and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority have all reviewed the over 800 studies on glyphosate (many of which are independent) and concluded there is no link between glyphosate and cancer. (Declaration of interest: I have never worked for or receive any money from Monsanto or any other chemical or agricultural company.)