• PLEASE HELP CHARLWOOD SAVE ITS CHURCHYARD TREES AND SIGN OUR PETITION
    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
    17 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Protection of Charlwood's Natural Heritage
  • Stop Fossil Fuel Subsidies
    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.
    9 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Pau Bayliss Picture
  • STOP SPRAYING GLYPHOSATE CHEMICALS ON SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE STREETS AND PARKS.
    South Gloucestershire Council currently uses glyphosate chemical herbicides on our streets and parks despite there being viable safe alternatives and despite the fact that the World Health Organisation (WHO) has identified glyphosate as likely to cause cancer in humans. The WHO finding sits alongside a wealth of existing evidence that raises alarming questions marks over the long term safety of exposure to glyphosate both on its own and in combination with other chemicals found in formulas such as Roundup. The use of glyphosates has already been banned or restricted in 8 countries. It is not acceptable that our children, ourselves and the animals we share this county with are being routinely exposed to these chemicals whether we like it or not. The Council needs to exercise the precautionary principle and follow the example of cities such as Chicago, Paris and Rotterdam by banning this spraying in public places. This is a matter of great importance and urgency for those of us who care about each other's health and the health of our children, our dogs and cats and all the flora and fauna of this county, and of course including our beloved bees. There are viable safe alternatives to glyphosates. The Netherlands have outright banned glyphosates in public spaces and are using a hot water treatment instead. A hot water and foam method is also available in the UK and South Gloucestershire Council is already aware that this can be a more effective alternative than hot water on its own. Glyphosates are the cheapest option but we must send the message loud and clear that value is not just about price and that the health and safety issues around glyphosate render its 'cheap and easy' status irrelevant. Other effective methods may cost more in cash terms but represent far better value to local residents. Using a formula such as glyphosate or Roundup in our public spaces is simply unacceptable no matter how cheap and quick it makes the task of urban weed management. Other European cities have already banned them and now Glastonbury have paved the way here in the UK and have now banned glyphosates and are implementing the foam/hot water method instead. At their next meeting, Bristol City council will vote on whether to do the same following a petition that was handed in on 19th January. People-power stopped these pesticides elsewhere - can 38 Degrees members in South Glos stop them here too? If you think chemical pesticides, that have serious health concerns, no longer have a place on the streets of South Glos then please sign the petition and also email your local councillor and request that they stop spraying outside of your property and all areas! You can find your councillor details here: https://council.southglos.gov.uk/mgMemberIndex.aspx Further information can be found in the following links: The Guardian: Glyphosate is a 'probably carcinogenic' pesticide. Why do cities still use it? http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/21/glyphosate-probably-carcinogenic-pesticide-why-cities-use-it The Independent: Glyphosate: Scientists urge caution over experts' claims pesticide is 'probably' carcinogenic: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/glyphosate-scientists-urge-caution-over-experts-claims-pesticide-is-probably-carcinogenic-10397787.html A safer non-toxic option is now used: http://www.centralsomersetgazette.co.uk/Glastonbury-takes-look-town-s-weed-problem/story-27651682-detail/story.html Bristol Council Website: A motion to ban the use of glyphosates will be voted on at the full council meeting after a petition was handed in on 19th January: https://www2.bristol.gov.uk/committeeMeetingFinder The Bristol Cable https://thebristolcable.org/2015/10/bristol-monsanto-and-chemicals/
    1,314 of 2,000 Signatures
    Created by Sonia Adrissi
  • Who profits from disaster in Cumbria?
    This government have made pledge after pledge , promise after promise to repair the damage from this disaster and to ensure that it never happens again, yet they have kept none of their promises . There is substantial evidence to show that logging has been a major cause of flooding in the region and yet the priority isn't to restore the road for local people but use it to recommence the very activity that caused the problem in the first place. This government has no concern for the environment or local interest but only for profit. It continues to make the same mistakes for its own greed. "The A591 repairs are a blag,it is in working order apart from the GAP which they are not working on,they seem to be concentrating their efforts on forestry operations! Something must be done!!! I saw lots of heavy forestry machinery using the road which is strange as we are being told it is undermined and I saw no evidence of the whole mountain moving!!!" 30 January 2016
    323 of 400 Signatures
    Created by mike peters Picture
  • #HEATHROW 13
    The signatories of this petition regard peaceful, direct action as a political right & believe that poeple are entitled to non-violent political protest, as inferred by rights under Article 19 & Article 20 [1] of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Article 20 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
    2,337 of 3,000 Signatures
    Created by Matt Shoul
  • Keep St Silvans car park open
    Please help keep this valuable facility open.This car park enables people with children and dogs etc to be able to disembark from their vehicles safely away from moving traffic on the highway. Staffhurst wood is a very popular woods with locals and with visitors from further afield. Offering it's natural beauty all year round (not just bluebell season) it is perfect for walkers, families, runners and dog walkers alike. The woods also have a lot of history as in the war it hid Canadian air men as there was an ammunitions factory in Hurst Green. Although there is another car park, it is the other side of the woods and feels a little bit too remote. Parking in this car park is also made more difficult by the trees growing in the middle of the parking area. The closure of this car park according to Surrey Wildlife Trust is due to the maintenance and up keep costs (this is estimated at £156 per annum !) As a regular visitor of this car park there are always other vehicles there when I arrive and different ones there when I leave. SWT have NOW proposed only seasonal closure and this proposal will incur the costs of welding a hinged bar to the already existing height restriction structure! Also after an email to SCC they have replied stating SWT will be monitoring DISPLACED parking ( at extra cost? ) .Please help keep this car park open and everyone still able to enjoy our great British woodland in safety.
    463 of 500 Signatures
    Created by Hannah Rose Picture
  • Air Pollution Alerts
    According to Public Health England, the percentage of premature deaths attributable to minute particles known as PM2.5s rose to 5.3% in 2013 in England from 5.1% in 2012. The death rate in London rose to 6.7% from 6.6%. The figures follow significant improvements in air quality across England in 2010 and 2011. The figures were announced as scientists at King’s college London warned of “high” or “very high” particulate pollution across much of London and south-east England for a second day. Seems that this information is only available if you're in the know. Official government figures suggest 29,000 people die prematurely from air pollution a year across the UK from particle pollution emitted by vehicles, central heating systems and dust. Friends of the Earth said: “There must be proper public warnings when there are bad air pollution episodes like today’s - but rather than people having to restrict their activities it must be vehicles which are restricted so that people’s health is protected.” People with heart conditions or breathing problems were advised to reduce exercise and to stay at home. last 2 days
    7 of 100 Signatures
    Created by deborah tonnesen
  • Don't Scrap the Landfill Communities Fund!
    The Landfill Communities Fund is at risk. The Landfill Tax A landfill tax was introduced in 1996 and has been very successful in reducing the amount of waste we send to landfill. It has been a big help in driving more recycling. The tax is paid by the waste companies who have contracts with local authorities and businesses. These Landfill Operators pay £84 per tonne of waste they deposit in the ground. And HM Treasury receives around £1.3 billion in tax revenues. The Landfill Communities Fund Most brilliantly of all, Landfill Operators can choose to re-direct part of their tax bill to local communities near landfill sites rather than paying it to the Treasury. In 2016-17 they can divert 90p of every £25 of tax they owe; so long as £1 goes to a community project. The local community normally fundraises for the missing 10p in every pound. To date, most Operators have jumped at the chance to do this and since 1996 local communities near landfill sites have been able to invest over £1.4 billion in 51,000 projects. These projects have had an amazing impact on Churches and Community groups: from building extensions to Churches, to providing resources to start-up play groups, to funding community wildlife projects, etc. there is no doubt that both our Churches and local communities are richer for the help they have received. HOWEVER the scheme is under threat. Urgent action is required to ensure local community projects don’t lose £39 million every year. The Threat The Government is proposing to change the legislation so that Community Groups are no longer allowed to pay the missing 10p. Instead only Landfill Operators would be allowed to pay this. This may seem a small detail but it would in fact close down the scheme as we know it. This is because the scheme is a voluntary one – and the cost to a Landfill Operator of having to find the 10p match funding would be significant. One major operator estimates this would amount to it having to find £500,000 of additional money each year. As a result, nearly all the main landfill operators have said they will not be able to find such money. They would therefore stop using the system of tax credits. Yet Churches and local community groups have found this missing 10p in the pound time and time again. Finding match funding has never been a barrier to spending from the Landfill Communities Fund - in fact it is already oversubscribed at least twofold. So, for no good reason, Churches and Community groups stand to lose millions (£39m in 2016-17 to be precise). And the country stands to lose a great ‘polluter pays’ scheme that is one of the biggest sources of funding for community projects. More Background In light of the economic conditions, the Treasury has been keen to ensure that the Landfill Community Fund is spent as quickly as possible - to pump money in to the economy. The Treasury therefore challenged Landfill Community Fund bodies to reduce the amount of grant funds they were holding in their banks. Most funders met the challenge, with a minority failing to largely because of funds committed for longer term projects not yet being released. But despite their efforts the Treasury’s overall spending target was not met. The Treasury was not happy and so last year HMRC ran a consultation asking for ideas for increasing the speed of spending. Some of respondents to the 2015 consultation highlighted the regulatory bureaucracy around the 10p for every pound they were finding. Others said it would be great not to have to fundraise for this 10p at all. No-one said they would prefer nothing to a 90% grant for their project. Yet these consultation responses are being used by the Treasury to justify the new proposals - proposals which would all but close down the scheme. How you can help Write to your local M.P. expressing your concern about the potential loss of the Landfill Communities Fund, asking your M.P. to raise this matter with the Exchequer Secretary of the Treasury, Damian Hinds M.P. urging him to allow local communities to continue to cover the 10% third party contribution. or Respond to the Treasury consultation on the statutory instrument, as proposed by HMRC and required to implement the changes. See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-legislation-the-landfill-tax-amendment-regulations-2016. The deadline is 3 February 2016. The clauses in the statutory instrument that related to this change that should be removed are – clauses 6,8(a,bii,biii,c,&d), 9 and 10.
    45 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Penelope Davies-Brown Picture
  • Demand the SNP state they will ban Fracking in Scotland
    Our environment is important to us and it's about time we started to realise this. We need to focus on renewable energy. I believe a stronger stance against fracking would also gain the SNP more support.
    35 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Paul Rossi
  • Take the UK government to court for doing too little to prevent climate change
    Currently we are doing far too little to help reduce the effects of climate change and we can't wait until a change of government to make the necessary changes. Since the latest election we have gone backwards and this is outrageously irresponsible of a government that is there to protect it's people.
    80 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Holly Whitelaw Picture
  • Keep Barnsley Frack Free
    We are concerned that fracking could: • Contaminate our water supply • Pollute the air with hazardous chemicals • Cause earthquakes • Reduce the value of our homes • Increase our insurance premiums • Make our roads less safe by increasing heavy traffic • Leak methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide • Cause illness in local populations • Increase noise and light pollution from drilling operations and traffic movement. Fracking is bad for our environment, bad for our communities and we call upon Barnsley Council to reject fracking in Barnsley.
    2,879 of 3,000 Signatures
    Created by Andy Hemingway
  • Save the fishing community of Cove Harbour
    Landowner Pralhad Kohle is trying to prevent fishermen at Cove Bay from using their boats, as people in the community have done since the 1790s. He is trying to evict them and has blocked access with boulders. Cove Bay would not be the place that it is without the harbour. Cove was built and founded on fishing and removing the boats would remove the heart of the village. It would take away people's livelihoods and remove a natural resource from future generations. The local community deserve to keep their heritage, and be allowed to enjoy it.
    11,248 of 15,000 Signatures
    Created by Claire Adam