Fracking causes misery worldwide, with death's, cancers and disease. It is unethical and should be banned. It is no different to importing blood diamonds. This is supposedly banned so why not shale gas? I say we ban its use. I say ban its usage and the imports and drilling for it will end.

In the UK 40,000 people die early each year as a result of dirty air. We need to do everything we can to tackle this. One of the things that adds to the pollution in London is that bus drivers do not switch off their engines when their buses are stationary or parked. Anti-idling devices would help reduce emissions. Diesel emissions are causing ill-health in children and vulnerable adults. The cost of retro-fitting anti-idling devices would be more than covered by the fuel saving.

Closing existing rail lines and converting them to BRT is a bad idea for five key reasons: • environmental impact • passenger comfort and perception • loss of network benefits • reliability • cost It is widely acknowledged that given a choice, people see rail / light rail as a superior mode to bus, and would be more encouraged to switch to rail should the service be enhanced. Removing the line from the rail system means that people would see it as ‘just another bus route’, rather than as a feeder to the rest of the rail network. Bus usage has been on a steady downward trend outside London since 1986 whilst rail usage is at record high levels. On the environmental impact, a simple appreciation of physics confirms that the rolling resistance of a rubber-tyred vehicle on a concrete track is significantly higher than steel wheels on steel rail. Furthermore the imposition of BRT would imply dismantling of the existing Overhead Line Equipment (OHLE) which allows trains / light rail to operate with zero emissions at the point of use. On the contrary, it is assumed that buses operating under BRT would have to be self-powered, each having to carry around their own power unit, with consequent penalty for weight and hence fuel consumption. If they were to be diesel-powered, this raises serious questions about the impact on local air quality. The consequences of pouring thousands of tonnes of concrete to create the guideways in itself is a CO2-intensive activity, additionally noting that doing so through Bricket Wood would be within a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). On reliability and cost, a ‘pioneering’ scheme on the old Cambridge to St Ives railway line suffered severe delays, cost overruns and quality failings – which are still being addressed. To make the service more attractive and boost ridership, ABFLY have long been calling for an increase in the service frequency on the single track line, which provides a train every 45mins in each direction. They believe this can be achieved by installing a ‘passing loop’ and bringing in a second train to operate a higher frequency shuttle. The costs of building a passing loop are thought to be somewhere between £4m and £7m based on historical estimates. Whilst the Hertfordshire Rail Strategy, published last July, dismisses the passing loop as, “unlikely to be considered by funders as a priority, as it would require provision of two train sets and train crew in place of the current one, making it difficult to achieve a favourable business case”, no such business case has ever been presented for public scrutiny, and in any case it is thought to be severely undermined by a high level of usage going unrecorded because of ticketless travel on the branch. This issue has recently been acknowledged by the Department for Transport’s very own figures. According to the Transport Vision document, the cost of the BRT scheme is quoted at £90m, over ten times the price of a passing loop, but no business case is presented for BRT either.

Invasive species cause the loss of biodiversity, as well as the extinction of native plants, animals and fungi. Invasive species are introduced into an ecosystem by humans who release the non-native species into the wild. The invasive species wreck native ecosystems and will eventually cause the extinction of hundreds of native species. THE PROBLEM In England a major barrier to the effective control of invasive species lies in the INABILITY OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES TO ACCESS LAND where problem species have become established. Neither can they force the landowners to notify them of the presence of named species nor can they take action to address invasions where it is reasonable to do so. THE SOLUTION In Scotland this problem has been rectified within Scottish legislation with the creation of ‘SPECIES CONTROL ORDER’ under the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011. Ths act empowers authorities, LAND CAN NOW BE ACCESSED IN SCOTLAND, and COSTS CAN, if necessary, be recovered from landowners who do not take action. FINANCIAL COST In Britain approximately £1.7billion is spent every single year on trying to tackle the problem of invasive non-native species. The Woodland Trust spends approximately 4-5% of their total site management budget tackling Invasive Non Native Species (INNS), predominantly Rhododendron Ponticums

As wheat starts to turn farmers spray it to kill it off in doing so it takes in large amounts of chemical as a last effort to swell the grain. It seems that very many people are now developing a wheat intolerance and a growing rise in Irritable bowl syndrome and Krohns and stomach complaints. This wheat goes into our bread and is consumed by most of the population on a daily basis. It can not be good under any circumstances. You can't give animals medication just before their meat enters the food chain surely this must be the same.

The use of glyphosates has already been banned or restricted in 8 countries. It is not acceptable that ourselves, our children and the animals we share our community with are being routinely exposed to these chemicals whether we like it or not. This is a matter of great importance for those of us who care about each other's health and the health of our children, our cats, our dogs and all the flora and fauna of this city, of course including our beloved bees. If you don't live in this area, click here to sign or start the campaign for your city: https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/start-a-pesticide-campaign

The current system of creating money through the sale of ever increasing layers of debt, and now, the BofE operating an unaccountable balance sheet which defies principle or prudence, is plumbing the depths of fantasy economics, is unsustainable in nature. It is starting to resemble a listing pirate ship liable to sink at any moment. Only Sound money can deliver a reduction of inequality, a sustainable future for the environment and the next generation and re-establish trust in government, creating a new united kingdom that everyone can believe in.

The bringing into hospital, germs etc, without due care and attention to the risk of Clinicians carrying the germs and infection to patients

Because 1. Buying Hinkley Point is a colossal mistake 2. Mrs May inherited the project from Osborne & Cameron, keen to develop Chinese trade, 3. but now finds it politically embarrassing to back out of this very bad deal Consequently, we need to inform the public 1. why the deal is bad 2. that there are better alternatives and 3. the Chinese and French can be placated while serving British interests Why is Hinkley Point such a bad deal? 1. It is far too expensive 2. There are undeclared costs associated with the nuclear legacy which make nonsense of published costs – we will have to look after the abandoned reactors and radioactive waste for centuries and nobody knows how to do it or cares how much it will cost 3. There is a huge risk of failure – no such reactor has yet been completed and the ones started (Finland 2005, France 2007) are unfinished, in deep technical trouble and seriously (by billions each) over budget 4. The risks are ultimately borne by us, not the French contractors or Chinese financiers – the project is too big to be allowed to fail by the Government of the day (not Mrs May) 5. Nuclear technology is in any case the wrong choice for filling our anticipated supply gap: nuclear energy gets more expensive as new ideas to improve safety are incorporated in the design; in contrast other well established methods of electricity generation such as gas or coal-fired turbines and particularly offshore wind and solar energy get cheaper by the day owing to accumulating experience and rapid technical development 6.IF it has to be nuclear, the Hinkley Point reactors are too big (small modular reactors can be built instead as needed, at a fraction of the cost and in much less time) and probably also the wrong technology (a debatable, but only secondary, point) Why is the Government pursuing it? The above problems with the Hinkley project are well known to Mrs May and her advisers, but 1. Mrs May inherited it from Messrs Cameron & Osborne, who promoted it mainly in order to develop tempting business relations with China. 2. Brexit makes such relations even more important as proof of GBplc's viability outside the EU Are there any alternatives? Technical alternatives are set out above, but how to meet the political and commercial imperatives? We must persuade the public, and thus influence the Government, to 1. Abandon Hinkley even at this late stage and with possible compensation costs and offer the Chinese and French Governments partnerships in implementing the chosen technical alternative (the Chinese are leaders in solar cell development and production and both the French and Chinese may be interested in offshore developments, small reactors and advanced research). 2. Maximise the benefits to UKplc by ensuring that a good share of work is retained (for example involving UK contractors and Rolls-Royce if small modular nuclear plants form part of the chosen technical mix). Balint Bodroghy BASC DIC (nuclear engineering) 5 Palmeira Avenue Mansions 17-19 Church Road, Hove, BN3 2FA REFERENCES Why Hinkley Point is a nuclear folly of Titanic proportions New Scientist 28.07.16 Michael Le Page Forget the economics of Hinkley Point, the politics are convincing Daily Telegraph Matthew Lynn 15 SEPTEMBER 2016 • 6:21PM If there’s one sure-fire way to irritate de Rivaz of EDF, it’s to mention Christmas turkeys. Emily Gosden, energy editor, Daily Telegraph 17 SEPTEMBER 2016 • 8:00PM Let's ditch Hinkley Point and HS2 to get more bang for our bucks, Daily Telegraph Liam Halligan 17 SEPTEMBER 2016 • 12:59PM Hinkley Point fires up Britain's nuclear ambitions Daily Telegraph 17 September 2016, 8:00pm Rolls submitted designs to the Government for Small Modular Reactors capable of generating 220MW, that could be doubled up to 440, a 10th of the size of a traditional nuclear power station. Rolls Royce Publicity: For some 50 years, Rolls-Royce has been helping Naval and utility customers maximise plant operation and safely extend plant lifetimes. Britain is “ideally placed” to take a global lead in the SMR market, which could be worth £400bn,

it would obviously help generate the power we need,also it would stop good arable land going to waste,not to mention the eyesore in the country syndrome.

If the government did this we would need one less nuclear power station. The cost of doing so is miniscule compared to the the cost of Hinkley Point and would only need to be done once and would last forever. Think of the small businesses and jobs that would be created and we would have lower energy bills.

Only a tiny percent of the billions of plastic cups thrown away are currently recycled. The waste is phenomenal and the destructive impact on the environment is appalling. What point have we got to in society where plastic is created, formed into a spoon, wrapped in more plastic and shipped, only to be used for a few seconds before being thrown away, never to be reused and to exist on the planet for the foreseeable future? Plastic cups and cutlery clog up our oceans injuring and killing all that live in there. In response to this France has just passed another ground breaking law. The law, which will come into effect in 2020, will ensure that all disposable plates, cups, knives and forks will have to be made of biologically-sourced materials and can be composted. And this is just the latest part of France’s transition into a greener country. Earlier this year, supermarkets and stores in France were told they could no longer hand out plastic bags. We in the UK should be following suit. The large packaging companies and their industry groups will be lobbying against any such suggestion. But our government needs to override such protectionism for the greater good of us all. Recyclable is not good enough - we have all seen how difficult it is to actually find places in the real world to recycle these types of apparently "recyclable" plastics. The law must be to ensure these single use products are compostable. Ensuring all disposable cutlery and crockery is fully compostable will cut both the energy used in plastic production and the waste and pollution caused by its disposal. We ask the Secretary of State to follow France's lead and ensure that by 2020 all disposable plates, cups, knives, forks and spoons are made of biologically sourced materials and can be composted.