The damage to the environment and economy of areas where this has been allowed is well documented. Poisoning of the water supplies, health issues, earthquakes are not imaginary and if you want an economic reason, property values can drop by 30% and you can find yourself unable to get house insurance. An estate agent in Poulton le Fylde, near one of Cuadrilla’s drilling sites, told the Observer "There are a lot of properties coming on to the market, and some of the owners are saying they want to get out before prices start dropping” Other local estate agents have said sales have fallen through because properties are near a fracking site. Herefordshire is an agricultural area and a tourist attraction, being an area of outstanding beauty. Experience in the US shows that fracking can create problems for local agriculture, including the loss of agricultural land, and concerns about water resources. Jumping forward to September 2015, you will have heard on BBC Hereford & Worcester that a new round of applications were to be allowed in the South of Herefordshire in the Wye Valley Area Of Outstanding Natural Beauty and in autumn of 2016 were issued. Thanks largely to public resistance accompanied by adverse oil prices South West Energy handed back the licences but made clear that this is a 'temporary' reprieve and they would be back, The fight continues ... Meanwhile a documentary is in editing stages at present. Thanks to those who have caught up with the plot and all the new additions to signatures. . Further info: Nationwide Mutual, the largest US farming insurance underwriter, announced in 2012 that “from an underwriting standpoint we do not have a comfort level with the unique risks associated with the fracking process to provide coverage at a reasonable price." What would be the impact on tourism of hundreds of shale gas wells and associated infrastructure? In Australia, local tourism bodies are among the opponents of unconventional gas developments. The Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management has said that the UK should “not encourage fracking as a part of our energy mix until there is more evidence that operations can be delivered safely, that environmental impacts are acceptable and that monitoring, reporting and mitigation requirements are comprehensive and effective. Mark Menzies, the Conservative MP whose constituency covers much of the area in Lancashire where Cuadrilla has been active, has said “I do not believe that the regulatory system is robust or transparent enough to instill public confidence should permission be granted to the industry.". Having fought off a previous attempt by South West Gas & Oil, we achieved a temporary stay, but with current news 2 years later in 2018 we can no longer consider ourselves safe we must raise attention to the fact that we are in an area where previous attempts have taken place. Go tell your friends again that this is no longer a distant threat but a very real one right on our doorstep . For recent updates watch our associated facebook pages. Here is an explanation for beginners: https://www.facebook.com/frackfreeshires/videos/1971358513123509/

“We are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences.” — Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist GM foods have not been shown to be safe to eat No long term human feeding studies have been done. Ever. There is Zero evidence that demonstrates GM food, or produce derived from GM fed animals is safe for humans to eat. Food Standards Authorities are ignoring their own, and independent scientific research and failing to acknowledge numerous studies which prove GM food and animal feed is definitely not ‘substantially equivalent’ and is in fact, potentially un-safe for human and animal consumption. UK and European food standards agencies are failing the public by relying on biased, short term data from the companies who manufacture GM crops & animals and stand to benefit financially and commercially from regulators turning a blind eye. Biotech-Accidents Happen We don’t want to be a GM feeding experiment especially in light of 2012 European food safety research documenting how a biotech “accident happened” After years of GM crops being on the market, a viral gene with serious potential to harm human health has been ‘discovered’ in 54 commercially available GM crops. Apparently, this was an ‘unintended accident.’ New genes and gene products, mostly from bacteria, viruses and other non-food species are being introduced. There is potential for transgenes, viruses & antibiotic resistance markers to spread out of control causing damaging & un-intended consequences to humans, animals and the environment. Health Independent scientific research has shown GM foods to cause tumour growth, damage the reproductive system & digestive tract and detrimentally affect the liver and kidneys of animals fed a GM diet. Research in 2012 demonstrated that rats fed GM maize died prematurely. No-one seems to know what damage GM foods are doing to humans, although there are unexplained increases in allergies, especially to soya, since the introduction of GM foods. GM and non-GM cannot co-exist. GM contamination of conventional and organic food is increasing. Consumers want GM free food Consumers don't want to eat GM foods or animal products raised on GM feed. Recent FSA research show the majority of consumers don’t want to eat animal products produced with GM food. We don’t trust GM companies to be in control of our food Chemical Poisoning Most GM crops are grown to be resistant to chemicals such as glyphosate. In Argentina and Paraguay, doctors and residents living in GM soy producing areas have reported serious health effects from glyphosate spraying, including high rates of birth defects as well as infertility, stillbirths, miscarriages, and cancers. Independent data shows glyphosate spraying has increased since the introduction of GM crops. Agricultural Diversity It is crucial that a diversity of crops can be grown side by side without contamination. GM crops have caused a serious emergence of “superweeds” resistant to pesticides. Farmers should be allowed to save their seed and re-plant it should they choose. The use of heritage seeds and traditional seed varieties should be able to continue. We don’t want control of the world’s food supply in the hands of a few biotech company directors. Environmental Pollution Genetic pollution contaminates, forever. Studies have shown the survival rates of Monarch butterflies and ladybirds are threatened by GM pollen and increased spraying due to genetically modified crops. Farmers who wish to grow non-GM crops have been sued by the biotech companies when GM contamination has occurred because their neighbours were growing GM crops. What’s the point? It is widely acknowledged as a myth that GM crops can help solve world hunger, even by the CEO of one of the companies who manufactures GM crops. The solutions to world hunger are complex, and political will is needed to contribute towards solutions. Farmers worldwide are rejecting GM crops. Current GMO’s have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability. “If some people are allowed to choose to grow, sell and consume GM foods, soon nobody will be able to choose food, or a biosphere, free of GM. It’s a one way choice, like the introduction of rabbits or cane toads to Australia; once it’s made, it can’t be reversed.” – Roger Levett The time has come to choose between a GM-based, or a non-GM-based, world food supply.

As you are probably aware; Navitus Bay Wind Park (1) will be located off the Dorset and Hampshire Coasts, to the west of the Isle of Wight, and also visible from Bournemouth, Poole and Swanage. I understand this development could produce the equivalent energy to power 800,000 homes and reduce carbon emissions by up to 1,125,000 tonnes per annum. This will be a tremendous contribution to our country's energy needs and carbon reductions. It will also help towards our renewable energy target of 15% which in the past few years has been behind plan and behind the progress rates of many other EU nations (2). I am very concerned however that a small group of local activists are using information that has little to no scientific backing to discredit this development and are creating fears about the impact on tourism and jobs in the area. I would urge you to balance any of their views against the report produced by The University of Edinburgh, presented to a Committee of the Scottish Parliament (3) in which there is clear consensus that there has been no measurable economic impact, either positively or negatively, of wind farms on tourism and concludes that “while some strongly held localised and anecdotal opinion exists, the Committee has seen no empirical evidence which demonstrates that the tourism industry in Scotland will be adversely affected by the deployment of renewable energy projects, particularly onshore and offshore wind” I appreciate the turbines will be visible from the coast on a clear day but believe this to be a small and perfectly acceptable compromise for the benefits delivered. Furthermore, I personally confirm that this development will not any way restrict the frequency or manner in which I enjoy the beach and coastal areas in the effected locations. 1. www.navitusbaywindpark.co.uk 2. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/reports/doc/com_2013_0175_res_en.pdf 3. www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EconomyEnergyandTourismCommittee/Reports/eeR-12-07w-r.pdf

Because it will save the public thousands whilst boosting the economy and helping us achieve our climate goals. It's a win win win situation. Unless you're a shareholder for an energy company.

There is widespread public anxiety among the local people about the effect of the new house building on flood risk and lack of amenities to be provided on the new estates. A full investigation into flood risk, taking into account the effects of climate change, needs to be done and also a reassessment of the need for provision of services such as schools, surgeries and community centres, before building work is resumed. Also, most of the houses are not being built to a sufficiently high standard of insulation for the future and are still being fitted with gas boilers! Delaying construction would allow the new building regulations to come into effect to force an improvement in standards.

Every year countless people become sick. Water polluted with sewage causes gastroenteritis, stomach upsets, ear, nose and throat infections, eye infections and in severe cases hospitalisations. It also also incredibly damaging for local wildlife, sea grass meadows, fish populations etc. See these articles for more info https://news.sky.com/story/sewage-pumped-into-sea-turns-idyllic-cornwall-cove-brown-in-dramatic-footage-described-as-shocking-12735013#:~:text=%22We%20saw%20370%2C000%20sewage%20discharges,blue%20spaces%2C%22%20she%20added. https://www.sas.org.uk/news/evidence-of-illegal-sewage-discharges-are-revealed-in-our-2022-water-quality-report/ Film by https://www.tinandcopper.co.uk/ - https://tinandcopper.co.uk/surfers-against-sewage/

To protect and preserve the ancient Parish of Ifield for present and future generations to enjoy.

Plymouth City Council are about to hack down approx 130 trees that run along Armada Way, Plymouth, Devon. There is a huge outcry from the public, yet their cries of sheer horror at the thought of losing all the beautiful trees are falling on deaf ears. The council are going to destroy the habitat/home of many birds, animals and insects, not to mention the enjoyment of all who visit and live there. Please, please can this be investigated. Trees, birds, animals and the very air that we breathe is so important to our lives. The council. in my opinion is causing wilful damage and destruction to our beautiful city all in the name of progress. How on earth can this be deemed as progress?

I think "growing" insects is the sufficient condition of private citizens DOING SOMETHING of real eco-value FOR ALMOST ZERO MONETARY OUTLAY.

From kick-abouts in the park, to Premier League derby days and the World Cup Final, football’s a game of courage, teamwork and fierce loyalty. And with its ability to capture the hearts and minds of billions of fans across every corner of the globe, football has an unrivalled opportunity to lead and inspire action to protect and improve the world we live in by harnessing the values that make it the beautiful game. When it comes to climate change, that opportunity is one we can’t afford to pass up. Record-breaking heat waves, flooding and poor air quality are already impacting the sport we love and depriving both young players and fans of a future in which football thrives. Without ambitious and immediate action, climate change’s grip on football’s future will tighten. Globally, we have seen sporting events and tournaments postponed due to extreme heat, players withdrawing because of the dangers of pollution and heat exhaustion, and the legacies of international sporting events vanishing as climate change creates conditions that make sport impossible to play. Climate change is the opponent we must tackle - and we’re already deep into extra time. Whatever shirt we wear or chant we sing, we’ve got everything to gain from taking action. That’s why at the World Cup - the biggest stage in world football - we want to see real leadership from our governing bodies, using football’s unrivalled platform to set the bar for future tournaments. But, instead of taking this golden chance, FIFA’s currently set itself up to miss its best shot at goal. In just a couple of weeks, the FIFA Men’s World Cup in Qatar will kick off. The tournament has been labelled as the first “fully carbon neutral FIFA World Cup tournament”, meaning its overall impact on the planet should be zero. But that’s not true. In reality, FIFA’s sustainability strategy for the Qatar World Cup rests on flawed carbon calculations, questionable offsetting practices, and shifting the responsibility onto fans rather than shouldering it themselves. As criticism mounts around shameful human rights violations in Qatar, carbon neutrality claims are being used as a distraction. Players, fans and the planet deserve better. Climate change is one of the defining issues of our time, with action taken this decade defining the future of the planet - and FIFA is well placed to lead by example. With its enormous global profile at the very top of international football, FIFA has an unmatched opportunity to provide leadership where we need it most. A report from Carbon Market Watch earlier this year casts serious doubt over FIFA’s claims of carbon-neutrality, and questions the quality, transparency and integrity of the offsetting practices put in place for the World Cup in Qatar. This petition is for football fans, players, clubs and organisations to call on FIFA to withdraw their claims around carbon neutrality and take a more robust and responsible approach to future World Cups, only using offsets as a last resort. #FIFAComeClean

We have all seen the effects of increasing temperatures here in the UK. Our weather is more volatile, as evidenced by the increasing number of floods, droughts, storms and heatwaves we are suffering. This is replicated all over the world and people are dying from the inaction, when there is overwhelming evidence of the man-made nature of the threat. We can mitigate it and adapt to the consequences, but we must act now. We need our Prime Minister to lead the UK negotiating team at COP27 and ensure the UK meets the commitments it made in The Paris Agreement.

Parents walking kids to junior school are often having to wheel a buggy with a younger child on board and keep control of school aged kids. The narrowed pavements slow the process down and in wet weather leads to everyone getting wet from contact with the overgrown bushes, largely privet.