Climate change and the “let’s do nothing until everyone else does” argument

Tackling the climate emergency really isn't rocket science, as our guest author explains ...

The suggestion that because the UK contributes a relatively small amount to the world’s total carbon emissions there is no point doing much to reduce it until the larger contributors do is one I often hear and read.

Indeed, our local MP, Robbie Moore, said precisely this as part of his response to a meeting I and others representing climate groups in the constituency had with him in September last year.

At this meeting, we asked him for his support for the Climate and Nature Bill, legislation that would require the current UK government to live up to the international commitments made by its predecessors, which he declined to do.

As part of Mr Moore’s explanation of why he would not support the bill attributed to him on Ilkley Chat he said:

“First of all, whilst I appreciate the bill is well intentioned, we really do need to confront the fact that the UK currently contributes 1% towards all global greenhouse gas emissions. Even if the UK halted emissions by 2035, it would save less than 1% of the 400 billion tonnes needed globally to stay below 1.5C.

“There are some who say that our actions would inspire others. The blunt reality is that whilst the UK has continued to lead on this issue – cutting emissions faster than any other major economy and continuing to rank near the top of the international Climate Change Performance Index – countries like the US and China have in fact ramped up their production of fossil fuels since then, rather than following our lead.”

Before looking at the factual inaccuracies in these comments, it is worth pointing out how ridiculous this is as a position to take.

To draw a direct analogy, if I dropped all the litter I ever have in my hands, it would amount to much less than 1% of what I see on Ilkley’s streets, in green spaces, on roadsides and by the River Wharfe.

There are definitely people who create considerable quantities of litter, for example, the fly-tippers whose actions Mr Moore rightly deplores. But applying his logic, me taking my litter home or putting it in a bin is pointless and I really should just drop it and leave it for someone else to clear up until the day when all the bigger culprits have changed their ways.

Really?

Now to the figures. The UK’s 1% contribution to global emissions is a conveniently low figure for those who don’t want to address the issue, and even this puts us in the world’s top 20 emitters.

However, it is artificially low because it only counts the emissions created by activities within the UK’s borders. We import a lot of products from outside the UK, and our demand for those items creates emissions that arise in other countries, so they should be included to give a true picture.

The 1% also misses out activities that start in the UK but occur outside, such as international flights from the UK. Factoring in these items adds around 200 million tonnes of CO² for which the UK is responsible.

Going further, once CO² has been added to the atmosphere, most of it remains there for centuries and even millennia, continuing to contribute to climate change. Looking back as far as records allow and measuring the cumulative contributions to carbon emissions over that period shows the UK’s share at over 4% of the world total, according to Our World in Data.

China, the US and India are often mentioned as countries that need to “do more” before it is worthwhile taking action in the UK and it is right that they top the league table of carbon emitters. What is overlooked, or ignored, is that they are all making considerable progress.

While falling short of its own ambitious reduction targets, China’s emissions have now been flat or falling for nearly two years. It is largely achieving this through the rapid installation of solar and wind energy generation, with China now accounting for nearly one-third of the entire world’s capacity from these two sources. It is also pushing forward with exciting new technologies, such as the recent launch of the world’s largest electric-powered container ship.

India is massively ramping up its solar generation capacity, too, and in 2026 alone is projected to have installed more than the cumulative total in the UK. The country’s current climate policies are expected to reduce total emissions by around four billion tonnes between 2020 and 2030.

Given the attitude of the current administration, progress in the US is perhaps the most unexpected, where more coal-fired power stations have been retired under Trump than under any previous US president.

According to recent analysis by Carbon Brief, coal power capacity in America has fallen by approximately “57 gigawatts during Trump’s first and second terms in office, compared with 48 gigawatts under Obama’s two full terms and 41 gigawatts under Biden’s single term.”

It also noted that “despite Trump’s efforts, clean energy made up 96% of the new electricity generation capacity added to the US grid in 2025”.

So, even if the argument wasn’t feeble in the first place, the UK’s share is really more than 1% when looked at properly and there is actually a lot of progress being made in the world’s three largest countries by emissions.

Adding to the environmental benefits of reducing the UK’s emissions is the fact that the net zero sector of the UK economy is creating value and jobs around three times faster than the economy as a whole and that if the UK could replace its dependence on gas (two-thirds of which is imported from other countries) for generating electricity with renewables, it would both reduce bills and improve energy security.

Overall, this seems like a compelling set of reasons to do more, not less and, with an important set of local council elections on the near horizon, a subject worth understanding where the various candidates looking to be re-elected or elected for the first time to Bradford Council in May 2026 stand on.