Why the environment must be at the heart of the UK general election

from The Guardian

As party leaders prepare to sign off on their election manifestos, we would like to draw their attention to a policy that has the overwhelming support of the British public.

While 52% of British people voted to leave the EU, 84% want the ban on hunting foxes to stay, according to the latest Ipsos Mori data. In addition, 88% support the ban on deer-hunting, and 91% back the ban on hunting hares. Support for the ban among people in the countryside is at similar levels.

Ipsos Mori projections indicate that there is a clear majority in favour of the ban in every constituency in England and Wales, including that of all party leaders, and that voters view more favourably those candidates who support the ban by a margin of more than seven to one over those who want it repealed.

We call on all party leaders not only to rule out any repeal, weakening or substitution of the Hunting Act but also to support its strengthening and enforcement.

The Hunting Act is one of the most popular pieces of legislation on the statute book today. We’re asking party leaders to send a clear, unambiguous message at this election that they fully intend to preserve Britain’s great natural heritage, and ensure that cruelty to animals in the name of “sport” remains firmly in the past.
Eduardo Goncalves Chief executive, League Against Cruel Sports, Jeremy CooperChief executive, RSPCA, Anne Brummer CEO, Save Me Trust, Philip MansbridgeDirector, IFAW-UK, Bill Oddie President, League Against Cruel Sports, Dr Brian MayFounder, Save Me Trust, Chris Packham, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, Peter Egan

•If there is one issue that should be at the heart of this election, it is climate change. When we next choose a government (in 2022), it’s likely that global temperature will have risen 1.5C. That’s the level that nations (including the UK) pledged at Paris in 2015 should not be breached to avoid dangerous climate change.

At current rates of burning coal, gas and oil, we are on track to put enough carbon in the atmosphere in the next five years to push us past that temperature increase.

But it’s not inevitable. Rapidly increasing our efforts to reduce emissions – from homes, businesses and transport – and installing more renewable energy give us a fighting chance. To build support, politicians must spell out the consequences of not taking the decisive action urgently required on climate change and introduce policies that will drive that action.

Greens have long campaigned for warmer and more efficient homes, renewable energy, public transport, and better provision for cycling – measures that reduce emissions and are cheaper for society in the long term.

I urge voters to find out where the other parties’ candidates stand on climate change and press them to commit to increased action. Because, whatever government we have and however hard or soft Brexit is, the challenge of climate change will still be with us.
Robert Palgrave
Hereford Green party

•There are three reasons the government is reluctant to publish its clean air plan (Report, 28 April). First, it will demonstrate that Defra has prioritised the interests of car manufacturers over the public good for the past five years. Second, the proposals are likely to be deficient and will be heavily criticised pre-election. Third, it will highlight the dangers of Brexit: for without the EU air quality directive, there are no legally binding standards to protect the public from the harmful effects of air pollution.
Dr Robin Russell-Jones
(Former chair, Campaign for Lead-Free Air), Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire

Deborah Orr has made the connection between NO2 emissions and hay fever: “The presence of NO2 also triggers allergic reactions to pollen” (Children can’t play if they can’t breathe, 29 April). Increased instances of hay fever, asthma and respiratory problems (especially in urban areas) are an unintended consequence of tree planting programmes, which are done for all the right reasons. But local authority planners and urban designers are not considering allergy and asthma when selecting tree species.

For example: the male catkins of birch may be a delight to see, but they emit copious, almost invisible, airborne pollen, which is a particularly potent trigger of hay fever, asthma and several common food allergies (pollen-food syndrome). The beautiful bark, relatively low purchase and maintenance cost and foliage that is pretty efficient at capturing carbon are positive features, but there are plenty of non-allergenic alternatives that could do the same job of mopping up carbon and releasing oxygen for the benefit of all.

The cost of ignoring allergens is poor respiratory health, days absent from school or work, and individuals suffering due to persistent over-exposure to noxious fumes and particulates and increasingly high pollen counts.

When there are alternatives, the idea of “simply not letting the kids play outside when air pollution is particularly bad” doesn’t really work. Children, when they go to and from school, collect pollen in their airways, hair and clothing, which they then bring home. Neither school nor home is a pollen-free sanctuary. The necessary policies include selecting the right trees and plants for highways and public spaces, alongside actions to cut the NO2 and particulate pollution that is primarily driven by diesel.
Jackie Herald
London

Bart Elmore is right that “Coca-Cola should have known better” (Report, 2 May). In 2016, along a two-mile stretch of a minor road in my home parish, volunteers cleared up 850 recyclable drinks containers, of which 25% were Coca-Cola-branded items. During January-April 2017, the same stretch of road has yielded 334 recyclable drinks containers (a 15% increase), of which 26% were Coca-Cola brands. Can we have a deposit return system in England and Wales as well as Scotland (Report, 23 February), please?
James Marsden
Much Marcle, Herefordshire