“This Government is so pathetically in the pocket of Heathrow bosses and the most wealthy frequent flyers, that it will support this ridiculous and costly plan for expansion, despite the miserable disruption it will cause to everyone else’s daily lives.
“These plans will trash our vital climate targets, and meanwhile cause misery on the roads, all for the benefit of the very richest people.
“This Labour Government must fix its twisted priorities, ditch the aviation obsession, and invest its effort instead in a real green future with high-paid green jobs, warmer homes, and cheaper bills.”
“The Lower Thames Crossing is a gargantuan waste of money that will dirty our air and increase road traffic danger and congestion across the South East.
“We have known for many decades that building new roads creates new traffic, and it’s estimated that this £10 billion scheme will only help journeys on the Dartford Crossing for five years while it induces new journeys to clog up all the roads in the area in short order. How many years before a multi-billion-pound relief road is suggested to cut congestion on the Lower Thames Crossing by those who want this scheme?”
“Instead of building ridiculously expensive and unnecessary new roads, we should be expanding our green public transport network to improve the day-to-day journeys of everyone who needs to get around, for a fraction of the cost.”
“The Labour government is trashing its climate credentials one absurd decision at a time. Only one day after receiving critical advice from its own climate advisors on the need to lower flying demand, ministers continue to support yet more unnecessary expansion for the benefit of wealthy investors.
“Pushing through these damaging plans shows such poor economic judgement. Over 100,000 extra flights a year won’t deliver for our communities. Labour should listen to the public who think airport expansion is the wrong priority. Most of us fly once a year if at all and would rather see cheaper train tickets and more bus routes instead to help with our daily journeys and create jobs where we live, in contrast with frequent flyers leaching money out of the economy.
“The green economy grew by ten per cent last year, and this is where Labour should be investing to deliver high-wage, long-term jobs across the entire country.”
“We must ask who these decisions would be made for and why. Whose advice is the Government listening to, when record-high wealth inequality is causing harm to the economy and society in many different ways, while frequent flying is the preserve of the super-rich?
“The aviation lobby is loud and well-funded, but the Government should instead be listening to scientists and its own Climate Change Committee, which has already urged a halt to overall airport expansion. The previous Labour government’s poor record on airport expansion doesn’t have to continue.
“If Ed Miliband is serious in his role as Net-Zero Minister, he will work to prevent the Chancellor and Transport Secretaries making a huge mistake, and advise the Chancellor to not make any dangerous new decisions until they have heard and listened to the new advice from the Climate Change Committee which is due in February.”
Orcas comment on killer apes destroying the planet by continuing to burn fossil fuels.
A petition signed by more than 1.6 million people urging the government to enforce a total ban on bee-killing neonicotinoid pesticides has been handed in to the Department of Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (Defra) by environmental campaigners [1].
The petition, which was coordinated by Greenpeace UK, has amassed a staggering 1,645,000 signatures from the British public and was delivered directly to Defra for the environment minister, Emma Hardy. It was delivered in the form of a bee hotel by campaigners dressed in ‘worker’ bee outfits carrying placards reading, ‘Pesticides Buzz Off’, ‘Protect Our Bees’ and ‘Bee Safe’. They were joined by Siân Berry, Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, who is a supporter of the campaign.
Separately, 15 leading climate and nature charities – including Pesticide Action Network, RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and Greenpeace – have written to the environment minister, calling for an end to the emergency authorisation of neonicotinoids on sugar beet crops [2].
In the letter they state: “By not allowing another emergency use of neonicotinoids, there will be more incentive for British Sugar and the government to fund research into alternatives, and to adopt nature-friendly farming approaches including Integrated Pest Management (IPM).”
Greenpeace UK’s campaigner, Anthony Lewis, said: “Using neonicotinoids to ‘protect’ crops is like setting fire to your house to protect it from burglars. Yes, it will destroy pests, but it will also kill bees and other vital pollinators we depend on for the food we’re trying to grow. It’s absurd.
“Bee populations have been decimated over recent years, with the use of neonicotinoids one of the drivers of this decline. As leading environmental charities and experts on nature protection, along with 1.6 million members of the public, we implore the government to implement a full and final ban on the use of all bee-killing pesticides once and for all.”
Bees are essential for our survival – pollinating much of our food and playing a critical role in sustaining ecosystems around the world. However, wild bee populations have fallen by a third, with the use of pesticides on farms a key contributor to their rapid decline.
The use of neonicotinoids, which are particularly lethal to bees and other vital pollinators, was outlawed across Europe in 2018. However, despite the ban, the previous UK government approved the ‘emergency’ authorisation of these deadly chemicals for four years in a row, against the scientific advice of the government’s own Expert Committee on Pesticides.
Black bees
During its election campaign, the Labour Party made a commitment to end these exemptions for bee-killing pesticides and the government announced last month that it was drawing up plans to outlaw the use of some neonicotinoids. However, whatever the proposals being brought forward in future, another ‘emergency’ derogation could be allowed. A decision on whether to grant this emergency authorisation again this year is expected imminently.
