They want to commission the use of more fossil fuels and cut all subsidies for renewable energy sources.

Not universally for either. They want to increase some fossil fuel usage and cut some renewable. They are big fans of fracking which they want to use in the meantime whilst we move towards nuclear (something we should have done a long time ago). They want to cut subsidies to renewables because they are against government market interference. However they are big fans of hydro electricity and geo thermal. They oppose wind and solar because they are inefficient and not very environmentally friendly. You have to clear a lot of land for solar panels to equal the amount of energy generated by a nuclear power station.

They want to increase support for alternative medicine.

Not as far as I am aware. They certainly don't want it on the NHS.

reducing our emissions would massively decrease the global emissions for the size of our country - saying we would make no difference is a really terrible attitude to have.

Not necessarily. It depends how you do it. UKIP are pro nuclear which would cut our emissions enormously. Hilariously the Green party are not. UKIP are opposed to trying to cut emissions through carbon caps and taxes because it won't work. If you damage industry too much they will relocate to other countries where there are literally no environmental standards. It's no good saying

Mr Green: 'Good job guys, we cut emissions but 80%!'

Mr Purple: 'Wow that's amazing, how did you do it?'

Mr Green: 'Easy! We taxed and regulated the offending industries so much they left the country!'

Mr Purple: 'So now they are in countries where they are free to belch out as much smoke as they like? Isn't that a bad thing overall for global emissions?'

Mr Green: 'Shut up!'

I accept there are a few nutters in UKIP especially regarding the environment but it's not translated into policy. Every party has it's nutters after all. David Tredinnick is an astrologist and Diane Abbott is a full blown racist.