Ratcliffe aviva la polémica y China frena emisiones (Full Transcript)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Hello, it is Alex in Westminster and it's James in the Newscast Studio. So, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who is the co-owner of Manchester United, now he has apologised for the offence caused by his language. This is after there was a really big backlash to comments that he made in an interview on Sky News about immigration. He said the UK had been colonised by immigrants. We have got someone to help us understand this and talk it all through. It is Simon Stone, football reporter for BBC Sport. Hi Simon. Hi, hope you're okay. We are. I'm guessing you're having a busy day, so thank you for carving out some time. I just wonder, before we kind of get going on these comments and the implications and the fallout and everything else, can you just run us through who is Sir Jim Ratcliffe? What's his background? Who is this man?

[00:00:45] Speaker 2: Okay, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, he has described himself as a boyhood Manchester United fan. He made a huge amount of money through his Ineos petrochemical company. And also, in more recent times also, he has kind of tried to dip his toe into football. Initially with Chelsea, he didn't manage to do a deal with them. And then, when the Glazer family, who are much derided by Manchester United supporters, but have owned Manchester United basically since 2005, when they decided they were going to sell all parts of the club, he got involved with that. And then, basically, probably two years ago now nearly, did a deal with the Glazer family to buy into the club. Which effectively now owns roughly a third of the football club. But the Glazer family, based in America, have essentially handed over the running of Manchester United to Sir Jim Ratcliffe and the people he has appointed. And they now effectively run Manchester United. So that is a condensed version of who Sir Jim Ratcliffe is. So he's a very, very successful and rich businessman. But in more recent times, he's almost better known for running Manchester United, basically.

[00:02:17] Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, very rich. The seventh richest person in the UK in 2025, according to the Sunday Times Rich List, with a net worth of about 17 billion. And I would just add, you know, very well known in Scotland and a controversial business owner there, where he owns the ethylene plant at Grangemouth. And his company was part owner of the oil refinery there, which now shut down the largest oil refinery in Scotland. And there was a controversy about that as well. But back to this controversy and what he actually said. I mean, maybe we should just, Alex, first of all, listen to this, shouldn't we? He was speaking to Ed Conway, the economics editor of Sky News, on the fringes of the European Industry Summit in Belgium, in Antwerp. Let's have a listen.

[00:03:02] Speaker 4: You can't afford, you can't have an economy with nine million people on benefits and huge levels of immigrants coming in. I mean, the UK is being colonised. It's costing too much money. It will cause, it will cause. The UK is being colonised by immigrants, really, isn't it?

[00:03:22] Speaker 3: And Alex, it was that colonised word, especially given the history of the British Empire, that has raised hackles at Westminster and very quickly seems to have raised the hackles of the prime minister.

[00:03:37] Speaker 1: Yeah, it's actually just worth saying that some of the stats that he was quoting there in that clip were wrong.

[00:03:42] Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a good point.

[00:03:43] Speaker 1: When it comes to the population of the UK. So the ONS, the Office for National Statistics, they actually said the population was around 66.7 million in the mid 2020s and went up to about 69.4 million in mid 2025. So an increase, but not the increase that Sir Jim Ratcliffe mentioned in that clip. But yeah, on to the kind of broader point. You're absolutely right. It's the use of that word, colonised in particular, that has attracted such a lot of attention and yes, criticism. And actually, the prime minister's intervention on this was really quick. He came out not long after these comments had been reported by Sky News but condemned them, you know, to say that this was completely wrong, that it was unacceptable, that it was... Chancellor Rachel Reeves called it disgusting. You know, there's just been this really strong reaction from Labour. And I think it is, I mean, we'll get on to a bit more of this in a minute, but I think it is really telling how quickly they were willing to wade into this and to express their view on this issue. And there's a whole lot of politics around that. But just as quickly as those senior members of the Labour Party, the government, were wanting to do that, so too was Nigel Farage. Because Nigel Farage also came out with his reaction defending the comments that were made by Sir Jim Ratcliffe, saying Britain's undergone unprecedented mass immigration that's changed the character of many areas in our country. Labour may try to ignore that, but reform won't. So we went straight into the political fallout of this.

[00:05:07] Speaker 3: And I think a relevant fact to that, which you know, is that Sir Jim Ratcliffe also told Sky News that he had met Nigel Farage, recently described him as an intelligent man with good intentions.

[00:05:19] Speaker 1: He's a guy that's not been afraid to get involved in politics before, it's just worth noting as a sort of footnote, is that he did back the Brexit campaign. You know, vocally he said that he was a Leave supporter during Brexit. But more recently, he said he was going to support Labour ahead of the last general election. And in that wider interview that he gave to Sky News, he did say that Keir Starmer, in his words, was a nice guy. But he went on to say that the country needed somebody that was willing to take difficult decisions.

[00:05:46] Speaker 3: Yeah. Now, as you mentioned, right at the start, Alex, Jim Ratcliffe has put out a statement. I'd hesitate to call it an apology per se, but he did say that he was sorry. Well, let me just quote it directly. I am sorry that my choice of language has offended some people in the UK and Europe and caused concern, but it is important to raise the issue of controlled and well-managed immigration that supports economic growth. And he went on to talk a little bit more about those points, about growth and the importance of job skills and manufacturing in the UK. And as he said, his intention was to stress that governments must manage migration alongside investment in those areas. And critically, he said to maintain an open debate. Simon, I wonder, in terms of maintaining an open debate, I mean, it's an absurd thing to say. I was going to say, how have Manchester United fans reacted? I mean, it's a ridiculous thing to say, because obviously many different Manchester United fans, as indeed many different newscasters, will have very different opinions on this subject. But, you know, can you give us any sense of the flavour of reaction around the club?

[00:06:53] Speaker 2: There's a lot of independent Manchester United fans who think that Sir Jim Ratcliffe is speaking sense and they broadly share his views and concerns. So there is no kind of unified voice, but it does, for a football club, for a global football club, it is a kind of uncomfortable position to be in to feel that the owner of that club is making statements that, A, are quite inflammatory, which we know that Sir Jim Ratcliffe is capable of doing, because he's already done that plenty of times since he's been involved at Manchester United. But also that risks alienating supporters at a point where you're supposed to be a kind of global, open-to-all entity, really, and that is an uncomfortable position for any organisation to be in, especially a global brand like Manchester United.

[00:07:56] Speaker 1: And I understand that the FA is looking at this. What does that mean? I mean, what might they do, if anything, in response to this?

[00:08:05] Speaker 2: Well, I mean, they have rules that you have to adhere to that applies to owners as well as players and managers, and therefore they could take action. And I only have to think back, it's a number of years now, but the former Wigan Athletic owner, Dave Whelan, who came out with incendiary comments about people involved in Cardiff City, and he was sanctioned for that. Now, I don't think this will... It's not quite the same thing with Sir Jim Ratcliffe's comments, and it would be interesting to work out whether, actually, he has crossed the line. That is for the FA to decide. They've not decided to charge him. That would be the first sign that they think he has crossed the line. At the moment, they're just looking into the comments, and sometimes in situations like this, they get in touch with people, whoever they are, players, managers, and ask them for an explanation of their comments. We're not even at that stage yet. So it would be interesting to see how the FA decide, if they decide to pursue this.

[00:09:24] Speaker 1: As we've been talking, and of course I have been listening intently to every word, but at the same time, I have caught out of the corner of my eye a new video that Nigel Farage has posted on social media, doubling down on his support for Sir Jim Ratcliffe's comments. It's one of these whole produced media videos that politicians like to do these days, and he is again saying that he is right to raise this issue. On the use of that word, colonised, Nigel Farage says, now that word was a controversial word, and he said, OK, if you don't like the word, we'll tone it down. But he's sort of reiterating the fact that he believed the comments more broadly were right. I mean, the politics of this is interesting, because I think we know that over the course of recent years in particular, I would say, the attitude of politicians and political parties toward immigration, the positions that they take on it, have really evolved in response to what they see as a difference in public opinion on this issue. And I think what you're seeing in response to Sir Jim Ratcliffe's comments here is really sort of cementing where some of the political parties are right now on this issue.

[00:10:34] Speaker 3: Yeah, and just to pick up on that, Alex, and also on Simon's point about, you know, what is the actual critique here? And exactly what you're saying is fair. I mean, Sir Jim Ratcliffe isn't here, so we can't ask him in detail these questions. But, you know, is this a critique of a practical critique, i.e. one about the welfare bill or the availability of housing or problems with accessing GPs, which some people who are concerned about immigration say have all been made more difficult because of immigration into this country? Or is this, as Nigel Farage has said on X, about changing the character of many areas in our country? Because one is a sort of practical concern and one is a more existential concern about the culture of the nation and what the nation should be like and what its values are. And that gets into interesting and certainly controversial territory. I think it's difficult to be totally certain without having Sir Jim right before us to ask him to clarify precisely what he means. But it certainly opens a debate about both of these avenues of immigration debate, doesn't it?

[00:11:51] Speaker 1: Yeah, without a shadow of a doubt. And Nigel Farage, interestingly, is trying to sort of make the case for both in that social media video that he's just put out, talking about the impact on public services as well as the towns and cities right across the UK. I think what is interesting was the Prime Minister's response to this. Like, yes, how quickly he came out calling it offensive, wrong, saying that Sir Jim Ratcliffe should apologise. And then later we had further comments, as is often the case with these things, when journalists get a chance to go and speak to the Prime Minister's official spokesman and ask them for their views on whatever it is, the issue of the day. On this one, because Keir Starmer's spokesman said that the issue here was about the language. So they said there should be a serious debate about immigration, but those comments were inflammatory and divisive. Because, of course, for the Labour Party, they have been, since they've been in government, very keen to say that they recognise there is a public concern about levels of immigration. They have set out a whole raft of measures which have proved controversial, even within the Labour Party, about some of the things that they want to do to try and bring levels of immigration down. Things like changing the criteria around indefinite leave to remain that people can get when they come to the UK, how long they have to be here before they can get, basically, status, that they can stay permanently. They are sort of controversial moves within the Labour Party. And if you remember, when Keir Starmer gave a big speech on immigration, he used this phrase when he said, we've become an island of strangers, which he then went on to say that he'd regretted using. But at the time, again, that was a controversial way to approach this issue of immigration. So it's really interesting that given that kind of history that the Prime Minister right now has so willingly lent in to this conversation so actively in condemning Sir Jim Ratcliffe's comments, it sort of shows you now that they're wanting to make their position on this clear.

[00:13:39] Speaker 3: Absolutely. I think the island of strangers thing, Alex, is so important, because this was a Prime Minister who said the UK risked becoming an island of strangers, was accused at the time himself of using extremely divisive language, which many people pointed out appeared to echo the most infamous speech about immigration ever made in this country by Enoch Powell in 1968. Downing Street, we should say, said that that had not been their intention. And indeed, the Prime Minister later said that he regretted using that phrase. But it's a distance to travel from there to here and his criticism of Sir Jim.

[00:14:21] Speaker 1: Yes, it is also worth saying, though, that I think what political, and this isn't just a Labour, I mean, also look at the Conservatives. So the Shadow Chancellor, Mel Stride, he said he did disagree with the use of that word, colonised, but again was trying to make the argument that it was right to have a discussion and a debate around immigration, immigration numbers are too high, because I think the Conservatives and Labour are both nervous about being seen to be dismissive of a concern about levels of immigration that they believe absolutely exists amongst the public, which is why they are choosing their words now, carefully, about the way they approach this, trying to reiterate that they're not trying to shut down a debate about immigration and whether immigration levels are too high, because they're polling and the feedback they get about things that matter to members of the public is that immigration is one of those really big issues. So that is why both those parties are trying to take that position. It's very different for Reform, for example, who've obviously made immigration one of their centrepiece issues, and you've now got Nigel Farage coming out in support of Sir Jim Ratcliffe. Now, some people will fundamentally disagree with that, but in terms of the politics, it's a more straightforward position for Reform to take. And then you've got the Liberal Democrats who've just said these remarks were totally out of step with British values. So it's so interesting, isn't it, that the issue of immigration, which has been really central in our politics for a long time, with politicians conscious that people out there on one side of this debate or the other, or somewhere in the middle, really care about this and feel very passionately about this. Conservatives, Labour, they've been sort of wrestling with their positions on immigration for some time. And then you get something like this, with Sir Jim Ratcliffe making these public statements, and suddenly everyone's having to crystallise their position pretty quickly.

[00:16:11] Speaker 3: It is interesting. Simon, this is somewhat unrelated, but as you're here, something that occurred to us, and we were just chatting about in the newscast office earlier, and we wondered if you could update us on, was one of Sir Jim Ratcliffe's things not to build a new stadium for Manchester United? Is that right? What's going on with that?

[00:16:28] Speaker 2: You're absolutely right. There was, last March, a big kind of song and dance made over Sir Jim Ratcliffe's plans for the new stadium, 100,000 seats it was going to have, and it's supposed to be being built on land that's not too far from Old Trafford at the moment. There's a lot of talking going on around the stadium, but not a lot of action. And it's interesting that among the people, you've focused on Keir Starmer, but among the other people who've put statements out before Sir Jim Ratcliffe's apology, however you want to describe it, demanding a retraction were Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester Mayor, and Tom Ross, the leader of Trafford Council, both of whom are key figures in the wider Trafford regeneration of which Old Trafford is supposed to be the centrepiece. At the moment, the stadium is, well, it's still at the discussion point, and there's a lot of discussions that are happening, but I'm not aware of any substantive, like even plans that have been put forward. There's some that got into the public domain that Sir Jim Ratcliffe showed off in London last year, but there's no planning application at the moment gone in. But Tom Ross and Andy Burnham are two people that Sir Jim Ratcliffe, Manchester United, and all the people responsible for the development of that stadium are going to have to get along, and they've both come out in opposition to the statement. So there's some patching up to do there. But as I say, at the moment, I don't think that the stadium is at a point where we even need to think about that.

[00:18:23] Speaker 1: So interesting to see how all of that plays out. Plays out. See what you did there. That wasn't a deliberate football pun. I didn't mean that. Simon, thank you so much for your time. Really appreciate it.

[00:18:34] Speaker 3: No worries. Newscasts, as you know, will never shy away from the difficult questions, and in 2024, Adam brought us, when will it stop raining? And now, in 2026, we're back in that territory, and we're going to go, when will it stop clouding? Because it's been gloomy and miserable. We've also had some very interesting figures about, which is a bit more serious, about China's carbon dioxide emissions, which have been actually falling. And is that a sign that the world's biggest polluters' emissions have peaked? Well, we're going to try to unpack that about China and also maybe see if we can get some sort of climate-related take on the weather here with the help of the BBC's climate editor, Justin Rowland. Hello, Justin. Hiya. Hiya. Now, I'm going to set you up with weather and climate, and I know, I know, I know you will say they're not the same thing, and that is fair. We've got to be very careful, yeah. Of course we do. Let's start with China, because I think that's the big story of the day, isn't it? It's the story you're covering for various bits of the BBC, and newscasters will be interested to hear your take. Can you tell us what's actually, what do the data say?

[00:19:38] Speaker 5: What have we heard? So after years, decades of surging emissions, and it's amazing to look at the graph of the emissions increase of China. So China's, let's just do a bit of that first, because it's such important context. China's emissions overtook America back in 2006. Now China produces almost three times the emissions of America. So in those 20 years, it's now producing three times the emissions, a third of world emissions come from China. It's just amazing, isn't it? It gives you a glimpse into the growth and the transformation of that country. It's just amazing. It's absolutely incredible what's happened in China, and also, you know, the role that China now plays in the world economy. And this is why, after years of surging emissions, 80% of new emissions come from China. It's such a big component of global emissions. So now what's happened is we've got the data that show for the first full year ever, China's emissions have fallen back. Now, before everybody gets overexcited, let's put this in context. They've fallen back by 0.3%, so an absolutely minuscule amount, and that's subject to kind of all sorts of data errors, so may not actually be accurate. But what the data wonks are saying is, look, put that in context, and you look back and you see that for almost two years now, and we haven't had a pandemic or anything, for almost two years, China's emissions have been stable or falling. So the feeling is that this is an opportunity to posit the question, and you can see I'm being quite careful about this, about whether China has reached peak emissions. So has the world's biggest emitter, the manufacturing hub for the world, reached peak emissions? Will emissions now begin to fall back? And what does that tell us about our changing world?

[00:21:22] Speaker 1: Do we know what the kind of drive behind this is? Is this a sort of deliberate thing by China? They want to bring the emissions down. I know they've set a sort of future net zero target. I think I'm right in saying 2060. But is it a sort of deliberate drive? Because when you look at the energy sources in China, I hear you've got a growth in kind of coal power at the same time as a boom in renewables. So if there is one, is there a strategy?

[00:21:47] Speaker 5: There is very much a strategy in China. So China, for the last couple of decades, has been prioritising investment in clean technologies. So this is not something new. This is not a sudden change in policy. This is a long-term direction of travel for China. So back at the turn of the millennium, so around the year 2000, China, and maybe a bit earlier, China was looking around, looking at the evidence on climate change and saying, my God, this is going to be a problem for our country. This is something we need to do about it. Looking at the way the world was behaving and seeing the nations were coming together and saying, this is a problem for all of us, we need to do something about it. And also, with a keen eye on commercial opportunity, was looking for industries that it could dominate. Because if you look back in history, virtually all the big new industrial developments came from the West and almost all of them were industrialised or mass-produced in America. So China was catching up by replicating what the rest of the world was doing. And it was looking for things that it could pioneer and could develop and could own as industries. And it settled on green technology. And you see this really interesting pattern with China sending promising young students out to Australia, to Denmark, to America, to look at the kind of technological innovations that are happening there. And you can actually see they come back and then they found these companies in the early 2000s to build solar panels, wind turbines, whatever, batteries. And you can see these grew into huge countries, leveraging one of the truly innovative skills that China has, which is really cheap manufacturing. So they took that skill of manufacturing, applied it to clean technology. The result was an unbelievable reduction in cost. And what we're seeing now is the delivering on the promise of that, if you like. They've now installed so much of this capacity that electricity demand is increasing really rapidly in China. All that demand was met by clean power. Peak electricity demand in China has increased because people are using electric cars, everybody's electrifying their homes, and so the peak is higher. That peak can be met both by that new clean power but also by a massive investment in energy storage. So what we're seeing is a delivery on a decades-long Chinese enterprise, a strategy of prioritising clean technology.

[00:24:03] Speaker 3: That is very interesting. And there are implications in all sorts of directions all over the world. And Alex and I, when we heard you reporting today, independently had the same thought. But Alex, newscasters will not be at all surprised to learn, was sharper and had it first, and therefore it falls to Alex to tell us the thought.

[00:24:22] Speaker 5: I'll leave it for the WhatsApp group. I own this.

[00:24:25] Speaker 1: It's like a race to have the thought. It's probably because I spend a lot of my life in Westminster and so we're consumed by the politics of any kind of issue, really. But it just strikes me that we know that Reform have been more than sceptical about net zero. In fact, they call it net stupid zero. And the Conservatives have also ditched their net zero by 2050 commitment that was, of course, introduced under previous Conservative governments. And when you talk to the parties or question the parties as to the reasons why, I mean, they are multiple, but one thing they often say is, look, there are much bigger emitters in the world. Look at China. They also quote the US, but they often cite China as to say that if China is still a huge polluter, why is the UK putting itself through pain as they would see it of trying to reduce net zero? Because it won't make it so much of a difference if you've got countries like China being huge polluters. I just wonder if these figures, a small decrease or be it, but if these figures might do something to that argument.

[00:25:30] Speaker 5: Well, I think the important thing to understand is that what the energy analysts looking at this think is this portends a fall that we've seen a tiny fall this year, but the trend is a decline. China has said it wants to peak its emissions by 2030. It's very common for it to over deliver on its climate promises, and it appears to be delivering early on that. So we would then expect, given the unbelievably huge investment in clean technology that China's making in terms of putting the stuff in, creating solar farms, putting in wind turbines, all that kind of stuff, all of that we would expect to deliver in continued reduced emissions.

[00:26:10] Speaker 3: Can I ask a really tiny question about that? Just generally, can we trust these figures? I mean, China's an authoritarian government with almost complete control over many aspects of life there. Are these figures definitely verifiable and reliable?

[00:26:25] Speaker 5: These figures actually come from independent bodies, which are, of course, using data produced in China. I think the feeling is that Chinese data on this kind of stuff is reliable. We haven't actually got the Chinese data. They haven't said what they think is happening in their economy, but I think we can trust this data. And there are ways of testing how much, you know, checking on how much CO2 emissions there are. That's good to know. But, you know, coming to your point, I think maybe not this year, but in the future, I think it will challenge that whole narrative. You know, China's not doing anything. I mean, look, it's really interesting, and this is a complicated area. China is building more coal and gas plants, you know, to generate electricity. In fact, last year, 2025, it put more in than it has for a decade, than any year for a decade. So it's investing more, if you like, in coal and gas than it has for a decade. But the role of those is essentially they act as like a kind of backup battery. So when you haven't got any wind or sun, so your wind and solar isn't delivering electricity, your batteries have run out, they need a backup to ensure that there aren't power cuts in China. So what they're proposing to do is turn on these new plants they've built and use that to power the system. So although they are building more coal and gas, they're expecting to use it a lot less. So emissions should still continue to fall. And actually, when you look at the strategy of the current government here in the UK, that's exactly what they're doing as well. They're saying we'll build out in the North Sea wind turbines, but we will also need to build new gas plants to cover us if there's two weeks of winter when it's cold and the wind isn't blowing.

[00:28:03] Speaker 3: Actually, in talking of the North Sea, this is a live, active political issue, Alex, at the moment, as you know, because in the parliamentary elections for the Scottish Parliament in May, there's a big fight going on, particularly in the north-east of Scotland, about the energy transition, about jobs being lost in the oil and gas sector, about whether that transition is being managed effectively, and Reform UK, which has never won any parliamentary seats in Scotland before, is very much hoping to make inroads in that part of the country. The Conservatives are competitive there. The SNP have their positions. You know, there's real competition going on around this. It's a live, active political issue.

[00:28:38] Speaker 1: Yeah, and it's so interesting because for a while, there was a sort of broad political consensus in the UK about the attempt to reach net zero by a certain date. But we have seen that fracture right across the political spectrum in the UK Justin, I just wanted to pick you up on the other bit of this. So we talked a lot about China. What then of the US? Because, of course, we know Donald Trump has been loudly sceptical about net zero and pulled the US out of all sorts of climate commitments.

[00:29:03] Speaker 5: And we've seen the latest development in that trend. So they call it the biggest deregulation in US history. They're going to lift the rules that mean that the Environmental Protection Agency, US's federal environment body, can regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Now, initially, that's mostly going to affect vehicles, so cars and trucks. But the idea of the Trump administration is there'll be no rules, federal rules. So that's the American government rules regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants as well. So while we're seeing emissions fall in China, America's saying, we don't care about emissions. We're not going to regulate them at a national level anymore. It's really interesting. What's really interesting about it is how much it demonstrates a really different approach to energy. That America's doubling down on fossil fuels. Trump is saying, you know, this is something America's really strong in. This is something we think we can leverage for America to make cheap energy in America. But also, we think we can sell into the world. China is offering the world a very different model. We're seeing that deliver in China. But obviously, the industries that we've been talking about China developing, the clean technology industries, are huge export industries as well. So it's seeing this as an opportunity to sell these products around the world, make money for China, but also, of course, deliver emissions reductions elsewhere in the world, potentially.

[00:30:23] Speaker 3: And there's a real tussle and has been for many years. When I was based in Los Angeles, I remember reporting on this tussle between the federal government under Donald Trump in his first term and the Californian authorities. California has an outsized role because of the outsized impact of its huge economy on setting some sort of standards, environmental standards. And for car manufacturers, for example, they often follow the Californian standards because it's just, if you're going to have to follow these tough standards there, it's actually cheaper just to do that sometimes and then impose them on the rest of the US. So California is sometimes seen as having a de facto ability to regulate the rest of the US. Is that tussle still continuing between mostly democratic California and the Republican federal government in the US?

[00:31:07] Speaker 5: Yeah, absolutely. We'd expect that to continue. We'd expect there to be pushback from states that care about this stuff. But let's just zoom out a little bit more, shall we, and look at, you know, it's really interesting talking to energy experts today about how impactful they think this really quite dramatic bit of deregulation, we're not going to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, the key greenhouse gas, anymore. Sounds like a dramatic move. People actually say, well, you know, in America, the trends are already quite well established. You know, solar power, wind power are now significant, well, particularly solar, way cheaper than other forms of energy. And people are putting that stuff in because it makes economic sense. So it's really competitive with coal, oil and gas already. So there is a trend there that's hard to reverse. And then actually look at the bigger picture. Look at China. China's such a big emitter that what China does, this bending the emissions curve, if you like, that seems to be happening in China, is more impactful on global emissions just because America's a third of emissions. So even if it does make a difference, it's kind of relatively, let's be careful, small change, all emissions matter, small change compared to what's happening in China and the effect China's having elsewhere in the world.

[00:32:15] Speaker 1: I know James quite rightly said that we should never interchange or mix up the notion of climate change and immediate weather and all that. However, because you're here, it's been great. It's been great and it's been so rainy. I mean, we had like a little burst at Westminster earlier that was a bit of an end of days vibe about it. Are we just in for this now? Is this the way of things?

[00:32:36] Speaker 5: I mean, look, there is a long, and this is a long-term trend, you know, over decades of increased rain in the UK. And there's a changing pattern, beginnings of what appears to be a changing pattern of rainfall. So you get more intense rainstorms. When the rain comes, it falls more heavily. Obviously that has implications for flooding. This is a long-term trend. It makes sense. The warmer the air is, the more moisture it can hold. So one degree temperature rise means 7% more moisture in the air. So we would expect, this is what scientists would say is likely to happen. Obviously, it's still dependent on weather patterns and what's caused the rain here. People would say, yeah, climate change may be playing a tiny part in it. But mostly it's to do with these blocking patterns of the jet stream, which has captured these kind of, you know, low-pressure systems which have delivered rain. Just sitting over the UK. Just sitting, raining on us day in, day out.

[00:33:26] Speaker 3: And not just rain, but just gloom and gloom and gloom, especially in parts of Scotland. Aberdeen has had no sun for more than three weeks at all. And it is now. We're recording this episode. It's 7 minutes to 5 on Thursday evening, which means that the sun sets in Aberdeen nine minutes from now. And last I checked, there had been no more sun today. Can I just, to offset that rather gloomy, literally gloomy picture.

[00:33:54] Speaker 1: Please do, because I'm literally just about to head up to Scotland.

[00:33:57] Speaker 5: So please do. Well, this morning, I swim in a local lido. And this morning as I walked in, there was the most beautiful dawn. And I tell you what, because we've had so many, this is Eric on the side of over-optimistic. Because we've had so many days of bad weather, seeing the sun break through and twinkle in the drops hanging on the trees was so beautiful. In fact, I took a picture and sent it to my friends. Absolutely amazing. We didn't get it. No, not yet. But when it comes, it's really going to be meaningful. You're really going to enjoy it.

[00:34:28] Speaker 3: I'll look forward to that. And Alex, I think, not that I'm here to do weather forecasting at all, but I think when you go to Dumbarton for any questions, I think it's going to be nice. I think you're going to get some sun. It's going to be very cold and sunny and maybe even some snow.

[00:34:41] Speaker 1: Wow, cold, sunny and snowy. They're the best days, are they not?

[00:34:43] Speaker 3: But I would just, yeah, but I would say for the record that I am not a fully qualified meteorologist.

[00:34:48] Speaker 1: It's all right. I'm just going to hang on to that as I head there in the hope it happens. Trust you entirely, James. Pack a warm coat.

[00:34:53] Speaker 3: Definitely, definitely, definitely. Justin, great to see you. Thank you so much.

[00:34:56] Speaker 2: Cheers, guys. Thank you.