A new planning framework out for consultation now would set in stone a dangerous double standard. However unpopular fracking applications might be, the guidance would mean planning authorities would have to 'facilitate' them. Yet they would be forced to reject wind turbines in almost all cases, even if public opinion was in favour.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for England will determine what can be built in coming years, guiding local authorities in the preparation of development plans and decisions on planning applications. 

It could open us up to a fracking-free-for-all, while making new onshore wind almost impossible.

Can you spare 15 minutes (or even 5!) to have your say?

(Many thanks to Frack Free Ryedale for useful resources on this consultation)

How to respond

The draft text is here, and you can respond via the online form (this seems relatively straightforward, you navigate by ticking a box for the page you want to go to and clicking 'Next'). NB. it is fine to only leave comments in response to one or two questions! You can also send responses by email to planningpolicyconsultation@communities.gsi.gov.uk (don't forget to include your name and address and be clear which section you are commenting on if you do this). The deadline for responses is 11.45pm Thursday 10 May.

Chapter 14: 'Meeting the challenge of climate change'

At first glance the draft text may seem reasonable, but a key footnote tells a different story...

Footnote 40: "A proposed wind energy development involving one or more wind turbines should not be considered acceptable unless it is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in the development plan; and, following consultation, it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by the affected local community have been fully addressed and the proposal has their backing"

On Tuesday, the Campaign against Climate Change joined others outside the International Maritime Organization, at the start of crucial negotiations to determine how (and whether) shipping carbon emissions will be cut. If the shipping industry were a country, it would be sixth in the list of carbon polluters, between Germany and Japan. But because the Paris climate agreement is based on nationally determined contributions from member countries, as yet it has no specific obligations to cut carbon. If shipping emissions continued to grow, it could be 17% (almost a fifth) of the world’s total emissions by 2050.

The Marshall Islands have proposed that the IMO should aim for zero emissions by 2035 while a group of EU, Pacific countries and NGOs are arguing for at least 70% (and aiming for 100%) by 2050. But Brazil and some other countries oppose any absolute cap on carbon emissions, and others are arguing for a weak compromise deal not compatible with the Paris climate agreement.

Ship stewards welcomed delegates aboard the 'Good Ship Paris', handing out boarding cards with instructions 'for your comfort and climate safety', while on the other side of the Thames, someone had cleaned sections of the wall to reveal a message: "IMO Don't Sink Paris".

The Transport Select Committee recently released their report on the government's plans to build a third runway at Heathrow. If you read the report in full, it is clear why this plan is completely incompatible with our climate obligations. Yet carbon budgets are given the briefest of mentions in the summary, and crucial issues tucked away in the ninth and final annex to the report, entitled 'Carbon'. Unsurprisingly, media coverage focused on those issues which were given more prominence, including air pollution, noise and public transport limitations.

But the committee's evidence-gathering can shine a light on some of the more extraordinary 'assumptions' being used by the government in its calculations around climate impact. These 'assumptions' are being used to avoid discussion of the damaging impact a third Heathrow runway would have on our climate targets, keeping MPs in the dark in the run up to this summer's Parliamentary vote on the scheme.