FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Trump cancels climate change legislation
Trump cancels climate change legislation
Jump to: Newest in thread
Miliband the environment/climate minister took two return flights to COP30, plus an entourage of 470 people. Estimated carbon footprint 48 million miles.
257 acres of rainforest were deforested for the road to COP30 venue.
Trump was not involved in either.
Uk imports half its food via air and sea miles, instead of making farming an attractive business /investment.
The uk has over 10 million sub standard homes with high heating costs, but it does nothing about improving energy performance
Trumps not responsible for that either
Like many I'm in favour of mitigating the impact of climate change, but policy makers are full of hot air (pms excuse the pun) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site) 12 weeks ago
|
US co2 emissions have been steadily falling this century under both Democrat and Republican Presidents, despite a growing population and gdp.
Perhaps your anger should be aimed at China where emissions are still rising. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 12 weeks ago
|
"Fuck the planet ? Eh ?
"
The planet will be fine. Even if your worst fears are realised and global temperatures rises dramatically, the planet will be fine. It used to be hundreds of degrees hotter and it’s turned out ok.
People are the issue. Too many people.
Cutting down forests and transporting the wood chippings half way around the world to fuel power power stations that used to burn coal dug out the ground just up the road. Utter madness.
Who gave us the right to kill the trees? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The planet will continue albeit we will damage increasingly more of the life upon it. How much damage we cause shouldn't be negotiable, when it clearly should be as little as possible.
Never before have we done so much harm and been forced to decide whether to continue to do so or change, in this way. Few people are obviously brave enough to take that step. Certainly the likes of Trump are not. It's a disgrace that we consider ourselves sentient beings really |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"US co2 emissions have been steadily falling this century under both Democrat and Republican Presidents, despite a growing population and gdp.
Perhaps your anger should be aimed at China where emissions are still rising."
New figures are showing that China’s emissions are down 0.3% |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 12 weeks ago
|
"US co2 emissions have been steadily falling this century under both Democrat and Republican Presidents, despite a growing population and gdp.
Perhaps your anger should be aimed at China where emissions are still rising.
New figures are showing that China’s emissions are down 0.3%"
Yes because of Trump's tariffs affecting their exporters! 🤣 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"US co2 emissions have been steadily falling this century under both Democrat and Republican Presidents, despite a growing population and gdp.
Perhaps your anger should be aimed at China where emissions are still rising.
New figures are showing that China’s emissions are down 0.3%"
0.3% WOW |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The planet will continue albeit we will damage increasingly more of the life upon it. How much damage we cause shouldn't be negotiable, when it clearly should be as little as possible.
Never before have we done so much harm and been forced to decide whether to continue to do so or change, in this way. Few people are obviously brave enough to take that step. Certainly the likes of Trump are not. It's a disgrace that we consider ourselves sentient beings really "
There is nothing brave about economically destroying your country and making its people poorer, while at the sane time offshoreing all your industry and claiming you have lowered your Co2 emissions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 12 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"US co2 emissions have been steadily falling this century under both Democrat and Republican Presidents, despite a growing population and gdp.
Perhaps your anger should be aimed at China where emissions are still rising."
Both republican and democratic presidents you say…..
Well the ones that have actually put in legislation have been Clinton and Obama
And Trump has taken the US out of the Paris climate change agreement
And Biden reversed that…
And trump did it again….. and is now trying to rollback environmental protections and regulations !
This is also the same trump administration that has gutted NOAA… so why are you surprised
I mean…. Fuck science!!!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"US co2 emissions have been steadily falling this century under both Democrat and Republican Presidents, despite a growing population and gdp.
Perhaps your anger should be aimed at China where emissions are still rising.
Both republican and democratic presidents you say…..
Well the ones that have actually put in legislation have been Clinton and Obama
And Trump has taken the US out of the Paris climate change agreement
And Biden reversed that…
And trump did it again….. and is now trying to rollback environmental protections and regulations !
This is also the same trump administration that has gutted NOAA… so why are you surprised
I mean…. Fuck science!!!
"
Well said sir. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"US co2 emissions have been steadily falling this century under both Democrat and Republican Presidents, despite a growing population and gdp.
Perhaps your anger should be aimed at China where emissions are still rising.
New figures are showing that China’s emissions are down 0.3%
0.3% WOW"
That number will increase. China was predicted to plateau and then fall, and that seems to be the direction of travel, but obviously that won’t be enough for some people |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"US co2 emissions have been steadily falling this century under both Democrat and Republican Presidents, despite a growing population and gdp.
Perhaps your anger should be aimed at China where emissions are still rising.
New figures are showing that China’s emissions are down 0.3%
0.3% WOW
That number will increase. China was predicted to plateau and then fall, and that seems to be the direction of travel, but obviously that won’t be enough for some people "
0.3% from the biggest polluter on the planet is nothing to be proud of... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"US co2 emissions have been steadily falling this century under both Democrat and Republican Presidents, despite a growing population and gdp.
Perhaps your anger should be aimed at China where emissions are still rising.
New figures are showing that China’s emissions are down 0.3%
0.3% WOW
That number will increase. China was predicted to plateau and then fall, and that seems to be the direction of travel, but obviously that won’t be enough for some people
0.3% from the biggest polluter on the planet is nothing to be proud of..."
An earlier post said Chinese emissions were rising. That isn’t accurate.
0.3% is better than 0. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"US co2 emissions have been steadily falling this century under both Democrat and Republican Presidents, despite a growing population and gdp.
Perhaps your anger should be aimed at China where emissions are still rising.
New figures are showing that China’s emissions are down 0.3%
0.3% WOW
That number will increase. China was predicted to plateau and then fall, and that seems to be the direction of travel, but obviously that won’t be enough for some people
0.3% from the biggest polluter on the planet is nothing to be proud of...
An earlier post said Chinese emissions were rising. That isn’t accurate.
0.3% is better than 0. "
It is better then 0 but 0.3% for a country responsible for 34% of the planets emissions, is pathetic and hardly worth mentioning, never mind touting it like its something to be proud of. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
China manufactures 28% of everything on the globe, and export a lot of it
If the recipient countries still manufactured in volume their emissions would be higher.
It appears we’ve relocated our manufacturing and its emissions
Is it fair to finger point at China ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 12 weeks ago
|
"China manufactures 28% of everything on the globe, and export a lot of it
If the recipient countries still manufactured in volume their emissions would be higher.
It appears we’ve relocated our manufacturing and its emissions
Is it fair to finger point at China ? "
I agree with this. My earlier post was a cheap shot. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"China manufactures 28% of everything on the globe, and export a lot of it
If the recipient countries still manufactured in volume their emissions would be higher.
It appears we’ve relocated our manufacturing and its emissions
Is it fair to finger point at China ? "
A fair point, of which I have raised several times myself.
The measures should definitely be changed to factor in imports as well as other consumption. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *erces LetiferMan 12 weeks ago
Somewhere off the edge of the map... 'ere there be monsters |
"If the recipient countries still manufactured in volume their emissions would be higher.
It appears we’ve relocated our manufacturing and its emissions"
Indeed. In order to bring emissions down at home and chase these insane net-0 policies, UK and other European countries have shut down, closed and gutted fossil fuel infrastructure and investment so that, on paper, we can look more "green". Meanwhile, our energy demands are higher than ever and are only going to keep increasing, therefore we outsource our fossil fuels and emissions from other countries, usually less clean, less efficent and less sustainable than if we did it ourselves.
Because, y'know, it doesn't count if the emissions happen over there instead of here, right? I mean, it's not like we all share the exact same atmosphere or anything, right?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Key Facts on UK Food Import Carbon Footprint
Total Import Impact:
Imported food adds about 20 million tonnes of CO2 to the UK footprint annually.
Import vs. Domestic:
Emissions from imported food are equivalent to nearly 50% of emissions produced by domestic UK agriculture.
Transportation Mode:
Food transported by plane generates roughly 100 times more emissions than shipping. Air-freighted goods make up a small portion of food miles but a higher percentage of total emissions.
Production vs. Distance:
A, 2026, perspective shows that importing produce from warmer climates (like Spanish tomatoes) can actually be lower in carbon than growing them in heated greenhouses in the UK.
Key Imports:
A significant portion of the UK's fruit, vegetables, and seafood are imported, with 28% coming from the EU and 18% from the rest of the world as of 2020.
Almost half our food imported, in the face of farm closures, up to ten year waiting list for allotments, new homes with tiny gardens and high fences making growing food difficult.
Sweet potatoes on the shelves at Ldil Plymouth grown in USA, 12000 miles field to plate, but cheaper than grown in uk
Similar circular arguments I’d assume for other types of consumption. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Key Facts on UK Food Import Carbon Footprint
Total Import Impact:
Imported food adds about 20 million tonnes of CO2 to the UK footprint annually.
Import vs. Domestic:
Emissions from imported food are equivalent to nearly 50% of emissions produced by domestic UK agriculture.
Transportation Mode:
Food transported by plane generates roughly 100 times more emissions than shipping. Air-freighted goods make up a small portion of food miles but a higher percentage of total emissions.
Production vs. Distance:
A, 2026, perspective shows that importing produce from warmer climates (like Spanish tomatoes) can actually be lower in carbon than growing them in heated greenhouses in the UK.
Key Imports:
A significant portion of the UK's fruit, vegetables, and seafood are imported, with 28% coming from the EU and 18% from the rest of the world as of 2020.
Almost half our food imported, in the face of farm closures, up to ten year waiting list for allotments, new homes with tiny gardens and high fences making growing food difficult.
Sweet potatoes on the shelves at Ldil Plymouth grown in USA, 12000 miles field to plate, but cheaper than grown in uk
Similar circular arguments I’d assume for other types of consumption. "
All great points, we should look to be more self sufficient on food production but we need to be realistic. We could improve the numbers a small amount but with a population of over 70million there is not anyway near enough arable land. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Whilst there's plenty of agriculture in this country with lot's being produced much of the home grown stuff is exported which is crazy 😧
Also many farmers (not all) have been greedy in the past ditching produce in favour of products such as Rxpe seed plants that used to come with a massive EU subsidy and was very lucrative, ironically a large amount of it would end up rotting in warehouses unused.
Since Brexit it's Solar farm's now that seems to be popping up everywhere, where previously fields full of yellow plants it's not solar panels, which are hugely costly to the environment to make and install.
Money will always win out over the environment.
Given the amount of farm's in this country we should be self sufficient, yet we are still getting products from half way around the world, driven by consumers demanding products that are out of season here.
We are all guilty |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0zdd7yl4vo
And it would still take 3 United States to produce the same amount of Co2 as China."
And more than 30 UK, meaning that our self inflicted economic woes due to high energy prices completely stupid as any reduction in our emissions makes no difference on a world scale.
And, as others have pointed out, all we have done is outsource the emissions by importing goods and food.
We have also done nothing to tackle the scandal of our poor quality housing stock. Watch the Guy Martin program from a few days ago - as an engineer, I thought it had more than a grain of truth in it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Good hopefully we do the same soon I bet militwat is pulling is grey hair out."
Fact;
As of February 2026, Sir Tony Blair’s think tank (TBI) is urging the UK government to reverse its ban on new North Sea oil and gas licenses and end the windfall tax on producers to unlock £165bn in economic value. Blair argues current policies are destroying jobs and endangering energy security.
Key details regarding Tony Blair's recent stance on oil and gas:
Reversal of Policy: The TBI argues that reversing the ban on new oil and gas licences is crucial for economic growth and securing domestic energy supplies.
Criticism of Labour Plans: Blair has criticized Labour's energy policies as "not fit for purpose," arguing that an aggressive, rapid transition risks high household bills and energy insecurity.
Net Zero Commitment: Despite pushing for continued, managed use of fossil fuels, the TBI states this is not a abandonment of the 2050 net-zero target, but a call for a more realistic, "affordable" approach to the transition.
Economic Impact: The TBI report indicates that expanding North Sea exploration could provide a £165bn boost to the economy.
This intervention is part of a broader critique of UK energy strategy in 2025 and 2026, where Blair has argued that short-term, rapid, or "phased out" fossil fuel policies are "doomed to fail". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 11 weeks ago
|
The only important figure is the emissions for the whole planet. Doesn’t matter who may have cut theirs by 0.3% if the whole planet output is up
2024: ~37.8 GtCO₂ (Record high)
2023: ~37.4 GtCO₂ (Global Carbon Budget)
2022: ~36.7 GtCO₂
2021: ~36.0 GtCO₂
2020: ~34.4 GtCO₂ (COVID-19 dip)
2019: ~36.3 GtCO₂
2010: ~33 GtCO₂
2000: ~25 GtCO₂
1990: ~22 GtCO₂
1950: ~6 GtCO₂
And i keep saying but the eco warriors totally ignore, deforestation, primarily for increased food production for the ever increasing population, approximately
10 million hectares of forest lost annually between 2015 and 2025.
Seems were more than happy to kill all the trees |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple 11 weeks ago
near enough |
"The only important figure is the emissions for the whole planet. Doesn’t matter who may have cut theirs by 0.3% if the whole planet output is up
2024: ~37.8 GtCO₂ (Record high)
2023: ~37.4 GtCO₂ (Global Carbon Budget)
2022: ~36.7 GtCO₂
2021: ~36.0 GtCO₂
2020: ~34.4 GtCO₂ (COVID-19 dip)
2019: ~36.3 GtCO₂
2010: ~33 GtCO₂
2000: ~25 GtCO₂
1990: ~22 GtCO₂
1950: ~6 GtCO₂
And i keep saying but the eco warriors totally ignore, deforestation, primarily for increased food production for the ever increasing population, approximately
10 million hectares of forest lost annually between 2015 and 2025.
Seems were more than happy to kill all the trees "
So the rate of increase is slowing, that's good 👍 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
