Climate Emergency

cantersaddick said:

Chippycafc said:

Right whose given up their car and foreign holidays..... 

Whose (sp) missed the entire point....

redman said:

Chizz said:

redman said:

Addick_and_Chips said:

I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....

But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?

I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment. 

Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly enviromental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate. 

Can you spell out the main points of the "anti climate change argument"?  

You obviously missed the point of my post. It's the nuances of it that get me. We produce less than 1% of the world's CO2 but reducing ours and moving it to China and India is considered OK, where they are still building coal fired generators. Should we be ruing our economy when the world super powers do far less? Is me not going holiday really going to save the planet. 

redman said:

Chizz said:

redman said:

Addick_and_Chips said:

I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....

But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?

I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment. 

Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly enviromental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate. 

Can you spell out the main points of the "anti climate change argument"?  

You obviously missed the point of my post. It's the nuances of it that get me. We produce less than 1% of the world's CO2 but reducing ours and moving it to China and India is considered OK, where they are still building coal fired generators. Should we be ruing our economy when the world super powers do far less? Is me not going holiday really going to save the planet. 

ME14addick said:

redman said:

ME14addick said:

Redskin said:

ME14addick said:

Dansk_Red said:

I read an interesting article which quoted the that the UK & Spanish Met Offices stating that part of the cause of the excess heat is down to cleaner air. 

A very small part I understand, but the main driver is an increase in greenhouse gases. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by 50% since the Industrial Revolution 
. 

And what is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Atmospheric CO₂ has increased by roughly 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, rising from about 280 ppm in the mid‑18th century to 422–431 ppm today.

This rise is extremely rapid compared with natural historical changes. Ice‑core records show that past CO₂ increases of similar magnitude took thousands of years, whereas the modern increase happened in just ~275 years, with most of the acceleration occurring after 1950. 

CO₂ is the most abundant long‑lived greenhouse gas.

The current concentration is the highest in at least 800,000 years (based on ice‑core data).

The rate of increase over the past 60 years is about 100× faster than natural post‑ice‑age rises.

Interesting figures. The other aspect is the other side of the coin; ie far less trees and plants absorbing CO2. Anybody know if there is data available to quantify this? 

Yes there is data available and having fewer trees does have an impact on the climate. Forests, plants, and soils currently absorb about 30% of all human CO₂ emissions, but deforestation is rapidly weakening this natural carbon sink.

It's easy to find data. I use Copilot and the following question produced some figures, try doing as search yourself and it will give links to the sources: is this true: far less trees and plants absorbing CO2 having an effect on climate change. Is there is data available to quantify this?

How much CO₂ do forests normally absorb?

• Global forests absorb ~2 billion metric tons of carbon per year (≈7.3 billion tons CO₂).Forests, plants, and soils together absorb ~30% of all human CO₂ emissions.A single mature tree absorbs ~48 pounds (22 kg) of CO₂ per year.

• How much forest are we losing?The world has lost ~10 million hectares of tropical forest per year over the last two decades. Fires now account for 44% of tree-cover loss (2023–2024), up from ~25% historically. Humans have cleared up to half of Earth’s forests over the past 8,000 years.

• How does reduced tree cover affect climate change?

  Two major effects:1. Less CO₂ absorption. When forests are removed, the planet loses part of its natural carbon sink. Deforestation and forest degradation cause ~11% of global CO₂ emissions — more than all transport combined.Since 1850, ~30% of all CO₂ emissions have come from deforestation.2. Stored carbon is released

  • Cutting or burning trees releases the carbon stored in trunks,branches,roots soils (which often store more carbon than the trees themselves). Some regions (e.g., parts of the Amazon) have already flipped from carbon sink → carbon source.
  • 
    

ME14addick said:

redman said:

cantersaddick said:

redman said:

Addick_and_Chips said:

I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....

But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?

I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment. 

Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly enviromental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate. 

Want to challenge 2 parts of this really.

What do you mean by "extreme green views"? As someone very immersed in this issue the only thing I have ever seen is the widely discredited eco-facist ideas of population reduction as the only way to avoid climate breakdown. But no one who suggests that is taken seriously. 

Secondly your claim that the BBC "shuts down anti climate change arguments". I actually think its the opposite and various studies have shown this to be true. The BBC has rules about balanced panels, interviews and discussions on the news. A while back they genuinely had a NASA scientist, an astronaut and a bloke who YouTubes about the earth being flat. Similarly when there was a breakthrough in vaccine technology they had a scientist who worked on the research and an anti-vax Facebook mum. Its exactly the same with climate change the panel will be one scientist who has dedicated their life to studying the climate, some fossil fuel industry stooge who claims "climate change is not real, or if it is real its not caused by us, and if it is its too late anyway" and some politician who is paid by the fossil fuel industry and who uses things like net zero as a wedge issue.

The constant platforming of these un-evidenced un-scientific "ideas" in the name of "balance" is the problem.

The very act of putting these people on the same panel as each other legitimises those ideas in the eyes of those who lack critical thought. It makes them appear as though they are equally valid. When they are not. 

If they were to be truly balanced then in the case of climate change it would be for every 97 scientists we have on to talk about climate change we have 3 "I did my own research" types who don't believe it. And yet we have entire "news" (legally not news) channels paid for by the fossil fuel industry telling us it doesn't exist, or if it does it doesn't matter.

This is the whole point, which you seem to be reinforcing. You don't need to have 97 scientists to convince on climate change. We know (or most of us do) the reality. So straight away you think everybody who makes a single point against any of the remedies has to be struck down. For instance I am far from convinced that this massive move to solar panels on prime agricultural land has been properly analysed. Full account taken of what happens to it at the end of it's life (max 25 years). Mostly currently planned for landfill? It's not recylable. The full impact of it having to be manufacture, often by very un-enviromental means and of course transported. The impact of having to import the extra food (some by plane) which cannot be produced locally. Any debate on anything like this is constantly shut down. Any reports are all done by people with a vested interest. 

Your comment about BBC being balanc3ed is farcical. They have been hauled over the coals on several issues recently about the lack of it. 

About 0.1% of all UK land is currently covered by ground‑mounted solar panels, according to the UK government’s most recent estimate (September 2024).

How much land is actually covered?

• 21,200 hectares (≈ 52,000 acres) of UK land hosts ground‑mounted solar PV. This is the official government figure based on capacity data and median land‑use per MW.

• Independent satellite‑based research from Lancaster University finds a very similar range: 15,580–17,364 hectares, representing 0.06–0.07% of UK land.

These two datasets use different methods (government modelling vs. direct satellite digitisation), but both converge on the same conclusion: solar farms occupy well under 1% of UK land—closer to one‑tenth of one percent.

How might this change?

Lancaster University modelling suggests that even under the most ambitious future scenario, solar might reach 0.72% of UK land by 2050. More typical deployment pathways keep land use around 0.22–0.39%.

This is because:, solar panels continue to become more efficient. A growing share of new capacity is rooftop or industrial‑site solar. Planning constraints limit where large solar farms can be built.

 

redman said:

ME14addick said:

redman said:

ME14addick said:

Redskin said:

ME14addick said:

Dansk_Red said:

I read an interesting article which quoted the that the UK & Spanish Met Offices stating that part of the cause of the excess heat is down to cleaner air. 

A very small part I understand, but the main driver is an increase in greenhouse gases. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by 50% since the Industrial Revolution 
. 

And what is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Atmospheric CO₂ has increased by roughly 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, rising from about 280 ppm in the mid‑18th century to 422–431 ppm today.

This rise is extremely rapid compared with natural historical changes. Ice‑core records show that past CO₂ increases of similar magnitude took thousands of years, whereas the modern increase happened in just ~275 years, with most of the acceleration occurring after 1950. 

CO₂ is the most abundant long‑lived greenhouse gas.

The current concentration is the highest in at least 800,000 years (based on ice‑core data).

The rate of increase over the past 60 years is about 100× faster than natural post‑ice‑age rises.

Interesting figures. The other aspect is the other side of the coin; ie far less trees and plants absorbing CO2. Anybody know if there is data available to quantify this? 

Yes there is data available and having fewer trees does have an impact on the climate. Forests, plants, and soils currently absorb about 30% of all human CO₂ emissions, but deforestation is rapidly weakening this natural carbon sink.

It's easy to find data. I use Copilot and the following question produced some figures, try doing as search yourself and it will give links to the sources: is this true: far less trees and plants absorbing CO2 having an effect on climate change. Is there is data available to quantify this?

How much CO₂ do forests normally absorb?

• Global forests absorb ~2 billion metric tons of carbon per year (≈7.3 billion tons CO₂).Forests, plants, and soils together absorb ~30% of all human CO₂ emissions.A single mature tree absorbs ~48 pounds (22 kg) of CO₂ per year.

• How much forest are we losing?The world has lost ~10 million hectares of tropical forest per year over the last two decades. Fires now account for 44% of tree-cover loss (2023–2024), up from ~25% historically. Humans have cleared up to half of Earth’s forests over the past 8,000 years.

• How does reduced tree cover affect climate change?

  Two major effects:1. Less CO₂ absorption. When forests are removed, the planet loses part of its natural carbon sink. Deforestation and forest degradation cause ~11% of global CO₂ emissions — more than all transport combined.Since 1850, ~30% of all CO₂ emissions have come from deforestation.2. Stored carbon is released

  • Cutting or burning trees releases the carbon stored in trunks,branches,roots soils (which often store more carbon than the trees themselves). Some regions (e.g., parts of the Amazon) have already flipped from carbon sink → carbon source.
  • 
    

Thanks. Very useful, and yes I could have researched myself. 
It does how important it is. Almost as important as not producing it in the first place. Needs pointing out to the totally anti oil-lobby, who also seem to think burning trees as fuel is a good idea, 

cantersaddick said:

redman said:

cantersaddick said:

redman said:

Addick_and_Chips said:

I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....

But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?

I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment. 

Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly enviromental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate. 

Want to challenge 2 parts of this really.

What do you mean by "extreme green views"? As someone very immersed in this issue the only thing I have ever seen is the widely discredited eco-facist ideas of population reduction as the only way to avoid climate breakdown. But no one who suggests that is taken seriously. 

Secondly your claim that the BBC "shuts down anti climate change arguments". I actually think its the opposite and various studies have shown this to be true. The BBC has rules about balanced panels, interviews and discussions on the news. A while back they genuinely had a NASA scientist, an astronaut and a bloke who YouTubes about the earth being flat. Similarly when there was a breakthrough in vaccine technology they had a scientist who worked on the research and an anti-vax Facebook mum. Its exactly the same with climate change the panel will be one scientist who has dedicated their life to studying the climate, some fossil fuel industry stooge who claims "climate change is not real, or if it is real its not caused by us, and if it is its too late anyway" and some politician who is paid by the fossil fuel industry and who uses things like net zero as a wedge issue.

The constant platforming of these un-evidenced un-scientific "ideas" in the name of "balance" is the problem.

The very act of putting these people on the same panel as each other legitimises those ideas in the eyes of those who lack critical thought. It makes them appear as though they are equally valid. When they are not. 

If they were to be truly balanced then in the case of climate change it would be for every 97 scientists we have on to talk about climate change we have 3 "I did my own research" types who don't believe it. And yet we have entire "news" (legally not news) channels paid for by the fossil fuel industry telling us it doesn't exist, or if it does it doesn't matter.

This is the whole point, which you seem to be reinforcing. You don't need to have 97 scientists to convince on climate change. We know (or most of us do) the reality. So straight away you think everybody who makes a single point against any of the remedies has to be struck down. For instance I am far from convinced that this massive move to solar panels on prime agricultural land has been properly analysed. Full account taken of what happens to it at the end of it's life (max 25 years). Mostly currently planned for landfill? It's not recylable. The full impact of it having to be manufacture, often by very un-enviromental means and of course transported. The impact of having to import the extra food (some by plane) which cannot be produced locally. Any debate on anything like this is constantly shut down. Any reports are all done by people with a vested interest. 

Your comment about BBC being balanc3ed is farcical. They have been hauled over the coals on several issues recently about the lack of it. 

I actually think you just prooved my point. Prooving that you choose to believe the missinformation spouted by these people rather than think critically. 

You're right that healthy debate shouldn't be shut down - only when the arguments are factually incorrect. So lets  put your clains to the test, because on several of these specific points the evidence simply doesn't hold up.

Firstly "Prime agricultural land" and food production
You and I had this exact conversation on a previous thread but I'll do you the curtesy of repeating it as seems it didnt go in. 

This isn't really up for debate anymore — it's regulated. Under the updated National Policy Statement EN-3 (2024), developers must prove that lower-quality land can't accommodate a project before they're allowed to use Best and Most Versatile (grade 1–3a) farmland, and any scheme over 20 hectares affecting that land has to go through Natural England consultation. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-policy-statement-for-renewable-energy-infrastructure-en-3-2025/national-policy-statement-for-renewable-energy-infrastructure-en-3-2025-accessible-webpage

Nearly a quarter of solar farm applications are already being refused, with food production and landscape impact cited as the main reasons. On top of that, most large solar farms are dual-use by design: many developments now combine generation with sheep grazing or pollinator habitat, and this is increasingly a planning expectation rather than a bonus. The UK's largest agrivoltaic site, a 30MW project in Cambridgeshire, has been grazing sheep since 2024 as part of the site's operation since it opened. And on scale: even hitting government targets to quadruple solar capacity would take up roughly 0.5% of UK land — less than golf courses currently occupy.

https://www.atlanticrenewables.co.uk/contact-us/news-blog/what-impact-do-land-use-and-planning-regulations-have-on-uk-solar-projects.html

https://cms.law/en/int/expert-guides/cms-expert-guide-to-agrivoltaics-and-floating-photovoltaics/united-kingdom

"max 25-year" lifespan
Wrong again. This figure if quoted is the warranty period, not the lifespan. Real-world degradation data tells a different story: field studies show efficiency typically drops by only 6-8% after 25 years, not the steep cliff people assume, and manufacturers now routinely guarantee well above 80% of original output after 30 or even 40 years. So the "max 25 years" framing understates real panel life by a decade or more. 

https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2017/10/the-opportunities-of-solar-panel-recycling

https://www.sunsave.energy/solar-panels-advice/maintenance/recycling

Landfill / "not recyclable"
This is just factually wrong. Under the WEEE Regulations, solar panels are classed as electrical waste and cannot legally be sent to landfill in the UK. On recyclability, advanced separation techniques now achieve up to 98% recovery rates for critical materials, with thermal decomposition recovering 95% of glass and 85% of silicon. The UK is actually building a competitive edge here: firms like Solar Recycling Solutions and Waste Experts (via its ROSI partnership) already recover up to 95% of the silver, silicon and glass inside every panel, at purity high enough to go straight back into solar manufacturing. Industry estimates put UK panel waste at around 30,000 tonnes over the next decade, a genuine and growing recycling sector, not a landfill problem. 

https://solarrecyclingsolutions.co.uk/solar-panel-recycling/

https://www.okonrecycling.com/renewables-recycling/solar-panel-recycling/solar-panel-recycling-after-25-years/

https://wasteexperts.co.uk/products-services/solar-panel-recycling

Manufacturing and transport emissions
Again this sunds like a valid point on the surface but as soon as you dig into it a little bit it simply doesnt hold up to scrutiny. It's already factored into the life-cycle assessments used by regulators and researchers, not being ignored. It's the standard metric solar is judged against (carbon payback for UK-sited panels is typically 1–3 years out of a 30–40 year life). If you think a specific study underweights manufacturing impact, that's a fair thing to interrogate but it's an argument for better analysis, not for dismissing solar's net benefit.

Imported food replacing UK production
Given the planning protections above, this is largely a hypothetical rather than what's actually happening, solar is being pushed toward lower-grade and brownfield land precisely to avoid this trade-off, and grazing continues on much of the land that does go to solar.

None of this means every solar project is well-sited or that concerns about specific developments are illegitimate plenty get refused for good reason. But "not recyclable," "max 25 years," and "prime farmland lost for good" aren't accurate descriptions of current UK policy or the technology as it now stands.

In summary - a series of hypothetical arguments that are either factually incorrect or already fully taken into account in the decision making. Hence prooving that the people spouting these arugments should be subject to more challenge not less.

ME14addick said:

Redskin said:

ME14addick said:

Dansk_Red said:

I read an interesting article which quoted the that the UK & Spanish Met Offices stating that part of the cause of the excess heat is down to cleaner air. 

A very small part I understand, but the main driver is an increase in greenhouse gases. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by 50% since the Industrial Revolution 
. 

And what is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Atmospheric CO₂ has increased by roughly 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, rising from about 280 ppm in the mid‑18th century to 422–431 ppm today.

This rise is extremely rapid compared with natural historical changes. Ice‑core records show that past CO₂ increases of similar magnitude took thousands of years, whereas the modern increase happened in just ~275 years, with most of the acceleration occurring after 1950. 

CO₂ is the most abundant long‑lived greenhouse gas.

The current concentration is the highest in at least 800,000 years (based on ice‑core data).

The rate of increase over the past 60 years is about 100× faster than natural post‑ice‑age rises.

cantersaddick said:

redman said:

Chizz said:

redman said:

Addick_and_Chips said:

I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....

But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?

I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment. 

Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly enviromental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate. 

Can you spell out the main points of the "anti climate change argument"?  

You obviously missed the point of my post. It's the nuances of it that get me. We produce less than 1% of the world's CO2 but reducing ours and moving it to China and India is considered OK, where they are still building coal fired generators. Should we be ruing our economy when the world super powers do far less? Is me not going holiday really going to save the planet. 

Ahhh the old "but China and India" argument. Also known as the Fox News argument. A proper classic - in that its about 15 years out of date. 

Firstly that 1% figure is a classic manipluation of how data is communicated to fool those who lack critical thought. It is the current annual emissions share, what it misses is that the UK is the world's 5th-largest cumulative emitter historically. Cumulative CO2 is what actually determines how much warming has already been locked in. A country doesn't get to exclude its historical contribution just because its current annual share has fallen.

Even if what you state about China and India is true (it isnt but we will get to that shortly) it still misses the key point: If the UK wishes to use its soft power to push China, India or anyone else towards aster climate action then it relies on its diplomatic credibility which is dependent on the UK taking its own action and being a leader in this. The UK has outsized influence on climate diplomacy (COP26 presidency, climate finance commitments, its position in international negotiations) but this is only because of its own delivery on the climate. 
There is also a more direct beenfit of developing and scaling technologies at home (offshore wind, grid-scale storage, solar manufacturing/recycling) builds an exportable industry and expertise that others buy. That's not a sacrifice, it's positioning UK firms to profit from a transition that's happening regardless of what the UK does. 

Now lets dig into whether what you state about China and India is atually true. TLDR: Its not.
This argument is massively out of date, both are decarbonising incredibly quickly. 
- China installed a record 315 GW of new solar capacity in 2025 alone, taking cumulative solar past 1.2 terawatts and pushing non-fossil power sources past thermal generation for the first time. Combined wind and solar capacity now exceeds 47% of China's total installed power capacity, having overtaken thermal power for the first time.https://www.pv-magazine.com/2026/01/28/china-adds-315-gw-of-solar-in-2025/
-Coal power generation fell in both China and India in 2025 — the first simultaneous decline in both countries in 52 years — driven by record clean-energy growth outpacing demand. 
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coal-power-drops-in-china-and-india-for-first-time-in-52-years-after-clean-energy-records
-India added a record 41 GW of renewables in the first eleven months of 2025 alone, raising renewables to 40% of installed capacity, while coal-fired generation fell by 3% — only the second full-year decline in at least 50 years. India has already passed 50% non-fossil installed capacity in 2025, ahead of its 2030 target https://energyandcleanair.org/publication/india-power-sector-review-2025/
-Electric cars made up almost 55% of new car sales in China in 2025, and an estimated 44 million electric cars were on Chinese roads by the end of the year https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2026/trends-in-electric-cars
-India's residential rooftop scheme, PM Surya Ghar, launched in February 2024 — and has already overtaken the UK's entire rooftop solar base in raw numbers, from a colder start: it has passed 5 million households and 14.8 GW of cumulative rooftop capacity, with installations now running at over 16,000 households a day — one of the fastest-growing clean energy programmes anywhere in the world. It's targeting 10 million households by March 2027.https://www.pv-magazine-india.com/2026/08/04/pm-surya-ghar-rooftop-solar-scheme-surpasses-5-million-households/

That's not a poorer country lagging behind on the technology the UK is being asked to adopt - its countried installing at a rate the UK isnt close to matching.

So the picture isn't "the West decarbonises while China and India keep building coal" — it's closer to a genuine global race, with China and India adding renewable capacity faster in absolute terms than any Western economy ever has. That undercuts the case for the UK sitting it out, and strengthens the case that credible leadership (technology, policy, finance) is exactly what accelerates that trend further, rather than free-riding on it.
Across power generation, EVs, and rooftop solar, the pattern is consistent: China and India aren't dragging their feet while the UK carries the burden — in several of these metrics they're outpacing the UK. That doesn't mean the UK should relax its own effort; if anything it strengthens the opposite conclusion — the "waiting for others to move first" argument was already weak, but at this point the others have moved.

To directly tackle your question:"Should we be ruing(sp) our economy when the world super powers do far less?"
a) As shown above others are doing more not less
b) Its proovably not ruining our economy. In fact the opposite is true.
The green sector isn't a drag on the UK economy, it's currently one of its best performers:
-The UK's net zero economy now supports over a million jobs and added £105 billion in gross value added in 2025 alone, making it one of the UK's fastest-growing economic sectors.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/energy-security-jobs-and-investment-boost-through-climate-action
- The sector's total economic value has grown 10.1% since 2023 — roughly three times the growth rate of the wider UK economy — and net zero jobs are 40% more productive than the national average, with wages 15% higher.
https://www.cbi.org.uk/articles/growth-and-innovation-in-the-uk-s-net-zero-economy/
- It's genuinely a UK-wide story, not a London bubble: the West Midlands, Yorkshire & the Humber, and South West England are emerging as major hotspots, while Scotland's net zero economy alone contributes £9.1 billion in GVA and over 100,000 full-time jobs.
https://www.cbi.org.uk/articles/growth-and-innovation-in-the-uk-s-net-zero-economy/
- The sector is underpinned by over 23,500 businesses, more than 96% of them SMEs — this is broad-based enterprise growth, not a handful of subsidised giants — and there's £455 billion of investment already planned or under construction across 262 GW of capacity, roughly four times current installed renewable capacity.
https://www.cbi.org.uk/articles/net-gains-the-uks-net-zero-economy-in-2025/
- Even during the 2023 recession, the net-zero economy grew 9% year-on-year while the wider British economy contracted — the sector was explicitly cited as bucking the broader downturn.
https://www.malaymail.com/news/money/2024/02/28/uk-net-zero-economy-bucks-recession-study-shows/120355

Put those together and the "should we ruin our economy" framing gets the direction of travel backwards. This is the sector actively reindustrialising parts of the country that lost manufacturing decades ago, turning old industrial and coastal regions into hubs for offshore wind, battery manufacturing, and grid infrastructure, with productivity and wages above the national average. Any government serious about growth and regional rebalancing would be doubling down on a sector outperforming the rest of the economy three-to-one, not treating it as an act of self-harm. The economic case for slowing down here is actually harder to make than the case for accelerating.

So once again your "arguments" dont stand up to the tiniest bit of scrutiny and dont match the evidence. 

Redskin said:

ME14addick said:

Redskin said:

ME14addick said:

Dansk_Red said:

I read an interesting article which quoted the that the UK & Spanish Met Offices stating that part of the cause of the excess heat is down to cleaner air. 

A very small part I understand, but the main driver is an increase in greenhouse gases. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by 50% since the Industrial Revolution 
. 

And what is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Atmospheric CO₂ has increased by roughly 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, rising from about 280 ppm in the mid‑18th century to 422–431 ppm today.

This rise is extremely rapid compared with natural historical changes. Ice‑core records show that past CO₂ increases of similar magnitude took thousands of years, whereas the modern increase happened in just ~275 years, with most of the acceleration occurring after 1950. 

CO₂ is the most abundant long‑lived greenhouse gas.

The current concentration is the highest in at least 800,000 years (based on ice‑core data).

The rate of increase over the past 60 years is about 100× faster than natural post‑ice‑age rises.

You haven't answered the question...
The Earth's atmosphere is comprised of: 

Nitrogen - 78%
Oxygen - 21%
Argon - 0.93%
CO2 - 0.04%
There are also trace gases present - Neon; Helium; Methane etc whose amounts are of miniscule proportions.

But despite its meagre contribution, CO2 is 'universally' touted as a profoundly influential force with regard to the Climate 'Emergency', and in particular, the  anthropogenic impact of its output.

John Causer: Nobel Prize Winner for Physics sharing the award with Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger.  

Dr Dick Lindzen: served as a Lead Author for Chapter 7 ("Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks") of the IPCC's Third Assessment Report on climate change

Dr John Christie: accompanied by Dr Roy Spencer, was awardedNASA's medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement. Noted for the first successful development of a Satellite Temperature Record.

Will Happer: both a Dr & Professor of Physics who was science advisor to three American presidents

All of the above are Climate 'Sceptics', and clearly not 'plain stupid' as the self-righteous Climate acolytes     would have them...
They are all in agreement that CO2 is not a significant driver of the climate. They are also in agreement that - hold on to your hats - the  Sun is the prime driver of the climate.
 Who knew...?

I'm not a Climate 'denier', I'm a Climate sceptic: sceptical of the fear-mongering inculcation and pharisaic posturing of a trillion dollar Industry.