The UK’s territorial ghg emissions do indeed represent ~1% of global emissions. This is confirmed by the UK’s CCC and other government published data. They also publish the annual emissions we export, our consumption emissions account for ~1.5% of the total.
It’s also worth looking at the full picture here, the UK’s population accounts for ~0.85% of the total, so our consumption emissions per capita are almost double the world average.
Strictly, we should also consider the UK’s historic emissions since the industrial revolution, since these emissions have a cumulative effect (our natural world can no longer ‘absorb’ human generated emissions). It turns out to be ~4.4% of the total, we are high up in the ranking, especially when compared on a per capita basis. It also means the UK has contributed more than 5 times as much to the cause of climate change as the world average.
Based on the full evidence regarding this, we have a significant responsibility and should act accordingly, especially given our advanced capabilities, reputational leadership and relative prosperity.

It’s reasonable to expect governments of any shade and others in society with influence to protect citizens from an existential threat, whatever the short-term cost. In the opinion of many who understand the science behind climate change, no government has yet come up with a plan to mitigate climate change that is environmentally responsible but economically sensible . Not doing so early enough has left us with a difficult choice between short-term cost and certain peril. Delaying immediate and effective action further will just make things worse.

Nuclear power will need to be part of the solution, providing the baseload to a decarbonised economy through electrification. Unfortunately, the evidence shows that while a reliable source of low-carbon per unit of energy, nuclear is more expensive than renewables (even when including system integration/balancing costs, partly paid for by taxation). It also has a much more significant long-term safety/decommissioning cost compared to renewables. Renewables, especially onshore wind, are the fastest to deploy, most economical and easiest to decommission when no longer needed (when we crack fusion!).

Like all primary energy sources, ground-mount solar farms have their challenges. It is inappropriate to build these on arable land when other options exist, like rooftops and low-quality/degraded land (e.g. landfill sites). We do need to keep this in perspective though, currently less ~0.08% of land is used for these solar farms of which less than 50% are on best and most versatile agricultural land. This is a lot less compared to any one of other uses such as housing, roads, growing meat and possibly even golf courses. Renewables can be removed with little or no impact on the land, unlike other land use which we just accept.
Onshore wind, on the other hand, has a much smaller land footprint. ACT submitted evidence to the Teignbridge local plan inspector demonstrating a 66 fold lower land impact per unit of energy compared to solar PV. The examiner agreed to retain the policy wording for onshore wind despite several objections.
It is true that wind is ~7.5 fold higher land footprint than nuclear, however, the total land needed for all of UK’s electricity demand from either primary energy source remains negligeable. This is because ~95% of the land required to meet wind turbine regulation, remains unrestricted for agriculture. This despite nuclear having ~150 fold lower land footprint. Then there is offshore wind, which is a little more expensive, higher ghg emissions and technologically more challenging than onshore wind, but still a commercially viable and environmentally sustainable option.
Given this evidence, onshore wind seems a no-brainer if we can overcome our emotional objections.

I hope most would agree that all primary energy sources will have a role in decarbonising the economy in a practical and affordable way. I believe the overriding priority must be avoiding the imminent, irreversible and existential tipping point (to most life especially the complex, like humans).
Should we really simply burn such a valuable natural resource like fossil fuels with their catastrophic consequences? Especially when there are evidence-based alternatives like cutting out wasteful use of energy, using it more efficiently and generating it from low-carbon sources?

The ACT energy group have recently discussed the relative cost of renewables compared to fossil fuels (see item 4 + comments) as well as the contribution Rosebank and Jackdaw could make to the UK’s energy needs (see comments on the same post). There is an infographic, to look at and raise any questions.