13 climate protesters are facing prison to silence protest against new runways which would wreck Government policy to protect us from catastrophic climate change. The Paris agreement underlines the need to cut emissions now. Aviation is the fastest growing source of carbon emissions and the only way to reduce emissions from aviation to a safe level is to reduce the number of flights. Despite David Cameron’s ‘no ifs, no buts’ election and manifesto promise to not build a new runway following massive public outrage at the proposals, the Government is now breaking its promise. There is more than enough aviation capacity for people’s annual holidays and the declining number of business flights. Airport growth is driven by a minority of frequent fliers who take the majority of UK flights to second homes and tax havens. Meanwhile, emissions from aviation are destroying people’s lives. People in the Heathrow area, who already have to breathe illegal levels of air pollution and suffer intolerable noise, would now see their homes destroyed. People across the UK have been flooded at Christmas, and every year hundreds of thousands more people die due to climate change - mostly in poor countries in the Global South, the people least responsible for emissions. The Government is expected to make its decision on whether to expand Heathrow or Gatwick – or neither, if we are successful – this year. It’s one or the other: build new runways or protect us from climate chaos. The people in the Global South who are dying due to climate change already have no voice in the debate. We can show them that jailing peaceful protesters will not silence those of us who do.

Mark Spencer MP recently received a free game bird shooting weekend courtesy of lobbying group British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC). We are, in turn, asking our MP to stop accepting gifts from shooting lobbyists and from now on support a ban on the damaging practice of driven grouse shooting. There are many very good reasons for banning driven grouse shooting: -Government subsidies support this practice (at a time when everywhere else is feeling the brunt of cuts: why aren't millionaire landowners?); -the illegal killing of grouse predators (especially the hen harrier, which is now almost extinct in England due to persecution on grouse moors); -grouse moors are extensively 'managed' in such a way that causes far higher flood risks downriver; -increased water pollution (which inflates our water bills- there is evidence that bills would be cheaper if the rich man's driven grouse shooting was banned); -increased greenhouse gas emissions due to the practice of burning the moors to keep a habitat that boosts grouse numbers; -millions of birds are killed each year.

In 2000 the UK banned all fur farming, to prevent animal cruelty. However the law does not prevent the import of real fur. There is no legal provision to make suppliers declare whether their products are made with real or fake fur. Real fur from abroad is now common in high street clothing shops. To send a message to our overseas business partners that the UK does not tolerate the cruel methods of fur farming; we need a law that bans the import of all real farmed fur, and which puts the onus on importers to prove that any fur they use is fake, vintage or taken from free-range animals that died of old age.

Adlingfleet Common is a beautiful place set in the rural village of Adlingfleet in East Yorkshire. In the height of summer when the grass is long, butterflies flit from flower to flower whilst hares stand upright watching out for foxes and stoats. The buzz of bumblebees harvesting the nectar of the clover rich pasture is interrupted by the calls of hedgerow birds staking claim to their territories. Barn and short-ear owls hunt the margins whilst marsh harriers and buzzards circle above the adjoining fields. The ancient pond provides the ideal habitat for damsel and dragonflies that dart through the air in an array of multi-colours changing direction with split second timing. Tadpoles seek refuge in the margins as the kingfisher dives for the next unsuspecting minnow. Adlingfleet Common is 60 acres of refuge that sits, as a drop in the ocean, amongst 1000's of acres of the most intensively “farmed” land in the country and is registered, under the CRoW act, as a public space and also serves as a bridleway. Adlingfleet Common needs to be protected. In June 2014 the Cow Lane Committee, who are responsible for the "care" of Adlingfleet Common, permitted the spraying of a cocktail of pesticides. The derogation to spray was authorised by DEFRA. The common was sprayed with a total of 90 litres of Lupo and 30 litres of High Load Mircam at a cost of £1090 to the tax payer. Both Lupo and High Load Mircam are not permitted for use in public spaces. The spraying of these chemicals killed off many species of plants resulting in a major loss of habitat for butterflies and insects, may have resulted in the polluting of the pond and adjoining water courses and put the public at unnecessary risk to pesticide exposure. The pungent odour of chemicals lingered for over 3 weeks after spraying. It is important that small pockets of land are responsibly managed and set aside for the flora and fauna to flourish. If not they will be lost to the ravages of industrial farming - along with the butterflies, dragonflies, hares, bees, birds and every other creature that is unable to exist in a toxic environment. With your help we can take a step to making a change and this can ultimately effect us all. Success will result in protection for Adlingfleet Common but may set an example for other important wildlife habitats to be protected. Protected for the environment. Protected for you and your children. Protected for future generations. Funding for Legal Action We are presently trying to raise funds via Crowdfunder to assist in legal action against the Cow Lane Committee. Full details can be found here: http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/save-adlingfleet-common/

That we the Fisherman and Farmers of Scotland have No Confidence in Richard Lochhead to stand and fight for our industries that are an important part of our rural economy, an important export earner for Scotland and vital to our food security

Neath Port Talbot has for centuries been an industrial area but now in the 21st century, the surrounding countryside is starting to return to its former glory with much of the area now supporting a thriving tourist industry. The people of Neath Port Talbot would like to keep it this way and do not want any form of shale gas or oil extraction by any method whatsoever, namely by Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking), Coal Bed Methane or Underground Coal Gasification.

There is far to much food waste when we have people going hungry. All stores should be required to donate unwanted food to charities and to food banks. It should apply to any supermarket with a footprint of 400 square metres or larger. If companies flout the law they are to incur fines. Supermarkets are to sign a donation deal with charities, which will be able to increase the quality and diversity of food that they currently get and distribute. In terms of nutritional balance, they currently have a deficit of meat and a lack of fresh fruit and vegetables. This will hopefully allow food-banks to push a fresh source of nutritional quality food to people and families in need.

Much of this borough is semi rural. We do not want to see our green spaces industrialised with up to 8 wells per square mile. Our roads are congested enough without the massive increase in heavy traffic these developments would cause. Fracking can potentially lead to serious or widespread pollution of our water supplies. And there is the risk of air pollution too. High-profile doctors, pharmacists and public health academics want fracking banned! We do not want these risks near our homes and schools! It could reduce the value of our homes! We do not want to risk negative equity and losing the value of our hard work! We already risk dangerous climate change by the burning of just a fraction of the fossil fuels that we have found! Just what is the point of destroying our environment just to look for more? If we stick to the goals to limit global warming to 2degrees, we will never be able to burn shale gas!

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/

No area should be contaminated by chemicals when it is not necessary. Live tree stumps can grow back into attractive bushes or trees if not killed by chemicals. Please sign our petition ASAP and get others to sign it ASAP. If you would also like to send us letters against the use of chemicals to kill trees and live tree stumps: please send them ASAP to our Email address and we will forward them to whomever it may concern. Our organisation is The Protection of Charlwood's Natural Heritage (PCNH). Our Email is: protection.natural.heritage@gmail.com If you'd like to help stop the felling of the churchyard trees please also sign ASAP our other petition using this link: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/please-help-charlwood-save-its-churchyard-trees-and-sign-our-petition-2

St Nicholas churchyard trees are all in a Conservation Area and all have Confirmed TPOs. They have the support of eminent scientists and other professionals and important organisations. They are essential to wildlife. They must not be destroyed on the basis of foolish lies. The Church must honour its policy on protecting wildlife and its habitat: trees. Please help Charlwood save its churchyard trees and sign our petition ASAP and ask others to sign it also ASAP! If you can also produce a letter in support of the trees, please send it ASAP to our organisation The Protection of Charlwood's Natural Heritage (PCNH) by email ( protection.natural.heritage@gmail.com ) and we will send it to the appropriate authorities. Please address your letter to “Whomever it may concern”. If you are against the use of chemicals to kill live tree stumps (which can contaminate the churchyard and the surrounding environment), then please also sign ASAP our second petition via this link: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/help-charlwood-surrey-protect-its-churchyard-and-surrounding-gardens-from-chemical-contamination

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.