Climate Emergency

Chizz said:

redman said:

cantersaddick said:

redman said:

cantersaddick said:

redman said:

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 A proper classic - in that its about 15 years out of date.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. 

per Global Energy Monitor; In the first half of 2026 alone, China brought 30 gigawatts (GW) of new coal power capacity online and started construction on an additional 25.4 GW. Around 392 GW of total capacity is announced, prepared, or permitted. spanning over 300 individual projects in various stages.  China operates well over 1,100 active coal power stations.

 

The number of new coal-fired power plants built around the world hit a “10-year high” in 2025, even as the global coal fleet generated less electricity, amid a “widening disconnect” in the sector. That is according to the latest annual report from Global Energy Monitor (GEM), which finds that the world added nearly 100 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-power capacity in 2025, the equivalent of roughly 100 large coal plants.

It adds that 95% of the new coal plants were built in India and China. 

O well everything I say is wrong so ..........

I didnt say China and India werent operating coal or even opening coal but the evidence I cited shows they are building renewables faster and that their coal usage has in fact peaked and begun to fall. That isnt to mean it isnt a problem but that its not the argument that it once was given the rate of growth of their green sectors. They are likely to be well ahead of us in not very long (in fact they are in a number of areas). So using them as an excuse to take no action - which is the point you oringinally made - is in fact wrong.

How is my point wrong? I said they are using coal fired plants which is clearly true. You see what you want to see. As bad as most politicians 

Because your point was "why should we be reducing our emissions when India and China are still using coal". My response was that yes they are still using coal (I'm not denying that) but they are also moving faster than us to reduce emissions so why would that be a reason for us not to bother. 

You are now pretending you didnt say the part about it meaning we shouldnt have to bother.

bobmunro said:

MuttleyCAFC 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. 

You have a point as long as you accept that Climate Change is happening. I think the most stupid thing Governments do is trust car companies. They produce cars that don't last and cost massive amounts in terms of the ebvironment to build and dispose of. Yes, you can get cars with zero emissions but when you take into account a battery lasts about 8 years then needs replacing at a cost too high not to scrap your electric car. So the cost of keeping a small petrol car for 15 to 20 years is likely to be cheaper but is discouraged. If you export your CO2 production to other countries is doesn't count. Being green has to be green and I don't trust large companies, especially car companies, to be so. I think we are pretty much buggered but at least I don't pretend Climate Change isn't happening.

Anyone who pretends that climate change/global warming isn't happening is a fucking idiot. The questions  that need answers are a) what factors are causing it? (it's more than just burning fossil fuels), can global warming be reversed/halted? and if not then what do we need to do as humankind to mitigate wherever possible its effects?

I have no faith whatsoever that humankind is collectively capable of working together on the last point.

I pretty much agree with this 100%. The one thing I am different to you though is your last point. Certainly not together but I am optimistic that entrepreneurs will come up some solutions. Just need to be given the right incentives and encouragement. 

"Preventing the certain deaths of every human, ending the human race and eliminating hundreds of thousands of species" should, surely, be enough of an incentive, no? 

swordfish said:

I won't quote all the post suggesting we'd come up with solutions given the incentive, but we already have them! It's the practical challenges of carbon capture affordability and implementation that's holding us back.

The simplest of them of course is to plant far more trees than are being chopped down and to preserve them. 

jimmymelrose said:

TD_Addick said:

Chizz said:

It's good to have different viewpoints on a thread like this. Everyone comes at this subject from their own perspective and/or armed with evidence from the worlds of science, government and business. It's a great sharing of knowledge. 

In fact, no two posters share exactly the same thought process and deliver their messages in identical styles. Because, if two people did, that would look very suspicious indeed. 

Chippycafc said:

Leroy Ambrose said:

Why do you all fall for it? Every time? Every single fucking time? 

Good Lord. 

People are entitled to their opinions its called a forum.

Perhaps you can list what we shall talk about and which side of the fence to sit on. And your contribution on any thread 90% of the time is always to abuse others. 

TD_Addick said:

Leroy Ambrose said:

Why do you all fall for it? Every time? Every single fucking time? 

Good Lord. 

It's called discussion mate, what people do on forums.You're entitled to your opinions and people are allowed to think differently if you don't like don't read the thread simple as that, should be easy to figure out for someone with superior intelligence like yourself. Good Lord. 

Lol how pathetic honestly, because me and Chippy said something similar its suspicious, great work Sherlock you've cracked the case. Maybe we both share the same viewpoint that the Climate Change enthusiasts are nothing but aggressive angry people who throw insults at people for people thinking differently. I've been called every name under the sun for saying it's hot outside because it's the summer (shocking isn't it hot in the summer you wouldn't think that). 

Thinking differently does not necessarily mean thinking straight.

How about: ' Shit, it’s 45 degrees outside, the trees are burning, we have to evacuate, but it’s summer’ 

Try saying that to the people around Bordeaux. If it hasn’t sunk in yet, it will as it moves northwards and if you’ve got another 50 years to live.

TD_Addick said:

bobmunro said:

jimmymelrose said:

TD_Addick said:

Chizz said:

It's good to have different viewpoints on a thread like this. Everyone comes at this subject from their own perspective and/or armed with evidence from the worlds of science, government and business. It's a great sharing of knowledge. 

In fact, no two posters share exactly the same thought process and deliver their messages in identical styles. Because, if two people did, that would look very suspicious indeed. 

Chippycafc said:

Leroy Ambrose said:

Why do you all fall for it? Every time? Every single fucking time? 

Good Lord. 

People are entitled to their opinions its called a forum.

Perhaps you can list what we shall talk about and which side of the fence to sit on. And your contribution on any thread 90% of the time is always to abuse others. 

TD_Addick said:

Leroy Ambrose said:

Why do you all fall for it? Every time? Every single fucking time? 

Good Lord. 

It's called discussion mate, what people do on forums.You're entitled to your opinions and people are allowed to think differently if you don't like don't read the thread simple as that, should be easy to figure out for someone with superior intelligence like yourself. Good Lord. 

Lol how pathetic honestly, because me and Chippy said something similar its suspicious, great work Sherlock you've cracked the case. Maybe we both share the same viewpoint that the Climate Change enthusiasts are nothing but aggressive angry people who throw insults at people for people thinking differently. I've been called every name under the sun for saying it's hot outside because it's the summer (shocking isn't it hot in the summer you wouldn't think that). 

Thinking differently does not necessarily mean thinking straight.

How about: ' Shit, it’s 45 degrees outside, the trees are burning, we have to evacuate, but it’s summer’ 

Try saying that to the people around Bordeaux. If it hasn’t sunk in yet, it will as it moves northwards and if you’ve got another 50 years to live.

100%

Nobody is using the argument that one hot summer or an extended few weeks of high temperatures is cast iron proof of global warming/climate change. But maybe there is evidence with 200 plus years of exponentially accelerating average global temperature, a similar accelerating rise in average ocean temperatures, and the melting of the ice caps - i.e.

Earth's polar ice sheets and caps are losing massive amounts of mass rather than completely disappearing. Greenland loses about 266 billion tons of ice per year and Antarctica loses roughly 135 billion tons per year. Meanwhile, Arctic September sea ice area has halved since satellite records began in 1979 

We can discuss and argue about the causes and whether or not we have time and the ability to do something about it, but denying the earth is warming is just idiocy. 

Maybe the planet is warming but it also did in the medieval warming period for a few hundred years and that was caused by many factors not burning fossil fuels. If you think weather/climate is just a straight line then you're wrong. It changes and has changed throughout history for many different reasons. 

Chizz said:

redman said:

cantersaddick said:

redman said:

cantersaddick said:

redman said:

cantersaddick said:

redman said:

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. 

per Global Energy Monitor; In the first half of 2026 alone, China brought 30 gigawatts (GW) of new coal power capacity online and started construction on an additional 25.4 GW. Around 392 GW of total capacity is announced, prepared, or permitted. spanning over 300 individual projects in various stages.  China operates well over 1,100 active coal power stations.

 

The number of new coal-fired power plants built around the world hit a “10-year high” in 2025, even as the global coal fleet generated less electricity, amid a “widening disconnect” in the sector. That is according to the latest annual report from Global Energy Monitor (GEM), which finds that the world added nearly 100 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-power capacity in 2025, the equivalent of roughly 100 large coal plants.

It adds that 95% of the new coal plants were built in India and China. 

O well everything I say is wrong so ..........

I didnt say China and India werent operating coal or even opening coal but the evidence I cited shows they are building renewables faster and that their coal usage has in fact peaked and begun to fall. That isnt to mean it isnt a problem but that its not the argument that it once was given the rate of growth of their green sectors. They are likely to be well ahead of us in not very long (in fact they are in a number of areas). So using them as an excuse to take no action - which is the point you oringinally made - is in fact wrong.

How is my point wrong? I said they are using coal fired plants which is clearly true. You see what you want to see. As bad as most politicians 

Because your point was "why should we be reducing our emissions when India and China are still using coal". My response was that yes they are still using coal (I'm not denying that) but they are also moving faster than us to reduce emissions so why would that be a reason for us not to bother. 

You are now pretending you didnt say the part about it meaning we shouldnt have to bother.

Where did I ever say we shouldn't bother? I have never said anything like this. My point was about us not going overboard: 2 main areas, firstly effectively transferring CO2 emmissions overseas, which if I remember correctly was when I first mentioned China and India, Secondly That we should not be damaging our economy when we have so little impact on the global situation.

Please stop accusing me of taking up positions which I have never said. You really are worse than a politician. 

No no. Direct quote below. You linked reducing our emissions with "ruining our economy" and asked should we be doing this when "India and China.... are still building coal fired generators". Questioning if we should be doing something when others don't - in the way that you did - is exactly saying we shouldnt be doing it (or to use common parlance "we shouldnt bother"). As you just confirmed again. So no I'm not misrepresenting you - I'm quoting you and not letting you wriggle out of the position you have taken and repeated when ypu realise the evidence doesnt stack up.

Of course the point that it isnt and wont ruin our economy and that we do actually have a disporportionately large impact on the global situation go completely over your head.

"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? "

Yes you are misquoting me and changing my words. The bit you have put in to justify your whole slagging me off is the bit is "shouldn't be doing anything" let alone shouldn't bother. 

Any way i'll bow down to you and fuck off now, before I get abusive 

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 this a clear an emphatic endorsement of the fact that the UK - as well as other "western" nations - should take unilateral action to ameliorate all causes of climate change?  Because it comes across as being closer to the trope rolled out questioning whether we should do anything, when some other countries appear not to.