This is important as the “unskilled” jobs that will suffer the most from this new policy actually require large amounts of skill and hard work from the dedicated people that undertake them. Hospitality for example is one of the biggest employers in the UK but is currently in the middle of a staff shortage despite being one of the largest employers of immigrants. The “unskilled” foreign workers that this government wants to turn away are what keeps this country going and are a strong fabric of our society!

The United Nations International Panel on Climate Change warned in 2018 that we have only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C. Beyond that even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.  Stafford Borough Council declared a Climate Emergency in July. It says it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from its own activities ‘to work towards carbon neutrality by 2040’. We, the undersigned, call on Stafford Borough Council to treat the climate emergency as urgently as the science demands and bring forward its target date to 2030 at the latest.

In 2015 /16 disastrous floods hit parts of Britain. People's homes and livelihoods were wrecked. The cost to the country was enormous. Now in 2020, the same thing has occurred again. Although the government has invested around £4 billion for flood defences around the country, it has not been nearly enough to prevent further flooding. The flooding of people's homes and businesses is wrecking lives, causing misery and spiralling costs to individuals, companies, insurance companies and to the country as a whole. The problem of flooding is not going to go away. Climate change is bringing ever-increasing rainfall and adverse weather and it is clear that the government's current flood defence plans and budget are inadequate. We need more money to be spent on all affected areas, with proper planning and a better, fully-funded strategy. We cannot afford to spend billions on HS2 and yet leave so many people desperate because they have lost everything.

Every day British Airways oblige their passengers to tag their hand luggage with single use tags that are only to identify hand luggage that has to be placed under the seat. Millions of non recyclable plastic tags are handed out everyday and are then put into the trash ( garbage).These tags are a nonsensical waste of single use plastic.There are many companies that now produce compostable or biodegradable tags that British Airways ( and other airlines could use ). Please sign this petition to stop this wasteful procedure.

Birds need these protections to remain in place. We have lost a huge number of our birds in recent years, scrapping the EU directives will further harm birds. Together, the EU Birds and Habitats Directives enable all the EU Member States to work together within the same strong legislative framework in order to protect the EU's most vulnerable species and habitat types across their entire natural range within the EU, irrespective of political or administrative boundaries. For more info. see website: https://www.birdlife.org/europe-and-central-asia/birds-and-habitats-directives

- Local Authority and Waste Authorities need to be able to recycle efficiently, effectively, and economically; and this means having suitable and timely labelling for consumers to be able to simply and efficiently separate eg all plastics, wet/dry, and for these then to be sorted by state of the art technology for recycling or storing. - Did you know that 'not yet recyclable' labelling means that only 25% of local authorities are recycling these items, and 'widely recycled' that only 75% of these items are recycled locally? - In all liklihood, between 25% and 100% of 'not yet recyclable' labelled items are not sent for recycling, and up to 100% 'widely recycled' items include non-recyclables are mixed and not separated out. - Where unrecyclable items were once sent to unsorted landfill, landfill is now well regulated, although inspections are fewer due to cuts in local authority and failure of privatised services, only non-hazardous inert waste is now landfilled (with exceptions, nuclear waste). - Organic waste can be used for fertiliser. - Incineration is now the preferred 'ecological' waste disposal method in the UK&EU, and much of the rest of the world (eg India). However any new construction sites are now under moratorium in the EU for incineration; although this is not the case in the UK anyway (ignored and as other places loosed regulation and oversight inspection for the free market. There are several (at least 6) new incineration energy from waste sites to be opened in the UK 2020, to add to the well over 40 energy from waste plants in UK (2017). - Incineration as an Energy from Waste producer, is the least economic, efficient or effective generator of electricity, despite DEFRA approving many projects and others in the planning and building phase (Edmonton, Isle of Wight) with independent Environmental Assessment. - The most economic, effective and efficient renewable energies are from combined wind wave and solar. This 38 Degrees petition asks that in a timely manner, say before 2021, UK gov. post Brexit, to transfer all EU directives on incineration and landfill, regulate and inspect all UK sites and meet 2020 UK Waste Management Implementation Plan targets, with improved plans for 2021 on. - Local Waste and Energy Authorities and Councils to work together to provide an economic, efficient and effective source of energy and waste that is top of the market in tech,. price and delivery, employment and labour rules and regulation simplified, recycled recyclable circular economy. - To improve on these targets in subsequent years, through economic, effective and efficient use of technology, in re-cycling and storing (including all plastic), landfill (where inspected and regulated for purpose), restricted bio-mass (fertiliser) or incineration (medical restricted to hospital sites, not transported). - Renewable energy (solar, wind, water, other renewables) to replace in a timeframe mutually agreed for existing stocks to be run down and oil and gas imports ended, transport and industrial processes, trade digital and electric, circular battery re-charging (e) vehicles; to address and meet climate change crisis targets, clean air, and for everyone. - Retail products to be labelled simply recyclable or non-recyclable and local waste authorities and retail and their manufacturers to be responsible for meeting 0% carbon, toxic emission (NOx SOx etc.). - Stores to have their own store returnable reusable and recyclable bins at all stores. - For 'not-currently recyclable' and 'widely recyclable' to be replaced with 'recyclable only' or 'not recyclable only'. - All stores Tesco Sainsburys Waitrose etc. to abide by a PPP Polluter Pays Policy to re-use, recycle or store for future tech. (carbon capture) with collection points at all stores.

Currently less than 30% of north London rubbish and only 10% of recyclable plastic is recycled compared to over 60% in the rest of the country: nearly 90% of our black/orange bag rubbish is burnt as “skyfill” in the present old Edmonton incinerator. The NLWA is in charge of this, and our two representative Councillors on their board are Richard Olszewski and Adam Harrison. The seven local authorities are Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Hackney, Haringey, Islington and Waltham Forest. Camden Council and the UK government have both declared a Climate and Ecological Emergency, and are committed to halting and reversing carbon emissions. This means we cannot go on pouring greenhouse gases and carbon emissions into the air increasing global warming; and toxins and particulates from burning plastic into the air for the local community in Edmonton damaging their health. Instead of taking the opportunity of the current incinerator reaching the end of its days to establish greener solutions to disposing of our domestic and commercial rubbish, the intention is to build an even bigger incinerator which will release 700,000 tons of CO2 a year for 50 years or more. This sustains the creation of garbage and burning plastic, is an inefficient way to generate power and will cost £1.2 billion of taxpayers’ money. We need manufacturers to make less plastic and take responsibility for what they create. We need our rubbish to be responsibly sorted for recycling. In 2015 when the decision was taken, there was not the awareness of the damage the new incinerator would cause, nor meaningful public consultation. It looked like a solution to allowing us to carry on generating waste and polluting the planet. There is no excuse now. This petition calls on Camden Council and our MP to withdraw support for the new Edmonton Incinerator and also to use their influence with the North London Waste Authority (NLWA), the GLA, the UK government: Secretary of State and shadow Secretary, and north London Local Authorities to halt and review the construction of a new incinerator at Edmonton for 2025. The NLWA must carry out a full, statistically reliable, independent environmental and social impact assessment of the proposed new Edmonton incinerator taking account of: a. individual local councils’ climate emergency commitments; b. the UK government’s 2050 net-zero commitment; c. the European exclusion of waste-to-energy incineration from a list of economic activities considered ‘sustainable finance’; d. the expected change in waste streams due to increased recycling rates; e. the potential to use renewable energy rather than burning waste to generate electricity and/or heat; and f. alternatives to incineration and landfill, through a review of best practice from other cities. Any environmental and social impact assessment that has already been carried out is insufficient unless it has taken all of the above points into account.

The planet faces dangerous levels of global warming. We have recently seen bush fires on a massive scale in Australia, droughts in Cape Town, forest fires within the Arctic Circle, the melting of the polar ice caps, more violent storms in South East Asia, increased flooding across the UK and locally we had the moorland fires above Mossley in the summer of 2018. The poorest on our planet will suffer the most from sea level rises in Bangladesh and extreme drought in Africa. Local councils from Camden to Oldham have issued a climate emergency but so far Tameside has not declared one. We the undersigned strongly urge Tameside Council to declare a state of climate emergency in line with national policy

Late November 2017, a local resident had tumbled into a garden which didn't maintain railings. In pictured item. it can easily be seen by traveling bus drivers.

Climate change is the number one 'Hot Topic', excuse the pun. Shops try to make customers feel comfortable by having hot air blasting down on their head as they walk through the doorway. It is all wasted. Not rocket science, if I want to go in the shop, I will go in. Put a welcome sign in, save money AND the Planet's precious resources.

People are watching with increasing frustration not to mention growing horror as climate emergency resolutions are adopted by councils which leave the door wide open to new nuclear. Would so called 'Small Modular Reactors' at the 'Moorside' site which sits on the floodplain in between Sellafield and the river Ehen, save Cumbria and the planet from burning? All the real life evidence indicates that continuing down the nuclear route with new nuclear such as Hinkley C in Somerset and so called Small Modular Reactors in Cumbria (SMRs look like giant maggots!) would make matters far worse, far faster. There are lots of reasons for this: SMALL MODULAR REACTORS ARE NOTHING NEW- the nuclear wastes from many SMRs are already languishing at Sellafield awaiting 'disposal' in the proposed deep Geological Disposal Facility. These nuclear wastes include research reactors and nuclear submarine reactors built by Rolls Royce. Secondly SMRs WOULD NOT BE LOW CARBON They have the same problems of fossil fuel intensive and toxic uranium mining on the lands of indigenous folk around the world, uranium enrichment at Capenhurst in Cheshire, fuel manufacture at the Springfields Nuclear Fuel plant near Preston and final 'disposal' in an as yet unspecified nuclear dump. This all requires fossil fuel and lots of it. Thirdly new SMRs on the Moorside site (or elsewhere in Cumbria) would be INFINITELY MORE EXPENSIVE to the public purse than alternatives and would detract from the real solutions to the climate emergency, namely a comprehensive energy efficiency programme and the development of renewable energy. Finally, all nuclear power stations including SMRs are uniquely dangerous. So dangerous in fact to all life on planet earth that no insurance company will underwrite them. The public pays time and again. Rolls Royce cars can be insured. Rolls Royce SMR reactors in nuclear submarines are uninsurable. Last year MPs were told "Energy bills in the UK are inflated partly because households are subsidising nuclear submarines." Prof Andy Stirling from Sussex argues that one reason the government is willing to burden householders with the expense of nuclear energy is because it underpins the supply chain and skills base for firms such as Rolls Royce and Babcock that work on nuclear submarines. He said: “It is clear that the costs of maintaining nuclear submarine capabilities are insupportable without parallel consumer-funded civil nuclear infrastructures." Cue the fanfare for Rolls Royce SMRs. Finally, ALL Nuclear power stations including SMRs are NOT RESILIENT TO CLIMATE CHANGE. Nuclear power plants function inefficiently or are forced to close during droughts and heatwaves. And many nuclear plants are located along coastlines. As seas rise, coastal nuclear power plants are at-risk from being flooded making them inoperable. Radioactive wastes are in danger of leaking into the oceans. Nuclear power involves major risks, including: a higher probability of serious accidents; a mounting and unsolved radioactive waste problem; and increased nuclear proliferation. Renewable energy risks none of these and does not fuel austerity by massively stealing from the public purse. We urge Cumbria County Council to fully recognise that nuclear power is not the 'solution' and to include a NO NEW NUCLEAR clause in their Climate planning. Anything less than this is totally unacceptable. Notes: Some of the reasons why new nuclear should not be on the table or anywhere near it are outlined in a report which we present to you by the Edinburgh Energy and Environment Consultancy. https://issuu.com/wildart/docs/lancaster_embrace_energy_revolution Energy Bills Subsidise Nuclear Submarines https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48509942 Government in cynical ploy to boost northern election hopes with fanciful smr power plant https://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.com/2019/08/government-in-cynical-ploy-to-boost_12.html?m=1

The storm names from the latter part of the alphabet go unused each year. the latest storm name ever used was Kate. It is unfair for these perfectly suitable names to be cast aside in this way. We should start next year's storm season by continuing where we left off in 2015 and continue till all the names have been used. Then we can start again at A and continue through to Y regardless of how many years it takes., before starting again at A.