Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the recent flooding
in Pakistan, what steps they are taking as president of COP26 (1)
to acknowledge, and (2) to address, the effects of greenhouse gas
emissions by developed countries.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office () (Con)
First, I express my heartfelt sadness at the horrifying events
resulting from the flooding in Pakistan. The UK has committed
£26.5 million in humanitarian funding to help support the people
of Pakistan as they rebuild from this terrible event. At COP 26,
parties recognised that loss and damage are already impacting
lives and livelihoods and agreed to scale up support to address
this issue. An agenda has now been agreed for COP 27 this week
and next, with a specific item on loss and damage. New news today
is that the UK Government will commit to triple funding for
climate adaptation, up from £500 million in 2019 to £1.5 billion
in 2025, which will of course help countries such as Pakistan and
Somalia.
(LD)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. The World Meteorological
Organization reports that greenhouse gas emissions are at
historic highs, with a worrying, unexplained spike in methane—a
greenhouse gas which is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
Countries such as Pakistan, those of east Africa and low-lying
island states are responsible for a minuscule amount of current
emissions and practically none of the historical emissions, yet
they are in the front line of the extreme weather events that are
a direct consequence of those emissions. First, now that the
Prime Minister is going to COP 27, will the Minister urge him
personally to intervene and make sure that the loss and damage
agenda sees some progress there? Secondly, does she regret that
we have missed our own target for the Green Climate Fund this
year by $288 million?
(Con)
The good news is that the Prime Minister is at COP 27 today. He
has been speaking and will make announcements, one of which I
have just mentioned. While I cannot go into the detail of what
kind of negotiations will go on on loss and damage, we have
announced funding of £5 million for the Santiago network as a
demonstration of our commitment to this issue. The points the
noble Baroness makes about the particular circumstances of
Pakistan are interesting ones which I will take away.
(Con)
The Pakistan situation is clearly appalling. However, would my
noble friend agree that at COP 27, rather than concentrating
solely on reaffirming targets, which, frankly, may never be met,
or loss and damage grants, which may never be decided, let alone
paid, and while emissions worldwide continue to rise very
rapidly, there is a much stronger case for focusing on innovative
new world schemes for extracting carbon out of the atmosphere and
absorbing it directly? Will she reassure us that the UK
Government will look at these new schemes and take the lead where
they can in a full and constructive way?
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for his constructive suggestion. I
believe in the power of technology. The point he makes about
carbon capture and storage is absolutely on the money. We have
seen leaps forward which have helped us with tackling climate
change on everything from electric vehicles to wind turbines,
solar power, LED lighting, hydrogen and new nuclear. Carbon
capture and storage are in the same category. Areas like these
are where businesses can come together with Governments to
innovate, drive things forward and then get them copied in lots
of different countries around the world. Climate change is an
international phenomenon; sadly, carbon and greenhouse gas
emissions have no borders.
(CB)
My Lords, last week we had a briefing from the President of the
Maldives. He pointed out that, of the 100% of GDP, they spend 30%
on adaptation due to the fact that the islands are being trashed
by hurricanes and sea-level rises, and they are spending a
further 25% on debt relief—the debt that they incurred in
building infrastructure, roads and hospitals, which are now being
washed away by the climate crisis. Do the Government think that
there is any value in trying to work towards debt relief for
nations such as this, given that the international community
cannot yet come up with the £100 billion that we agreed last year
in Glasgow for situations just like this?
(Con)
We are open to innovative solutions. This is another one that has
come forward from the Maldives, which I have only just heard
about. It is obviously right that hurricanes and monsoons and
things make it difficult for countries such as the Maldives and
other small islands to deal with their debts; in any financing,
we would need to make sure that the result helped with climate
change alleviation, but I am very happy to learn more.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Question points the finger of blame solely at
developed countries. Does the Minister agree that it is not just
developed countries, but also countries such as China and India,
whose leaders have failed to attend the conference at Sharm
el-Sheikh? Does the fact of their non-attendance suggest a lack
of commitment and engagement on their part?
(Con)
The attendance of the UK delegation—which includes the Prime
Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Environment Secretary, my
noble friend from our House, , and, indeed, a former
Prime Minister, Boris Johnson—shows the seriousness of this
matter. To be fair, we have these big COPs, as we had in 2015 and
as we were honoured to chair last year, and not all world leaders
go to every COP every year. Of course, if action on climate
change is going to work—for exactly the reasons that I have
already articulated, in terms of there being no borders for
greenhouse gas emissions—it is absolutely essential that China,
India and other big emitters step up to the plate and deliver on
what they have promised and, indeed, even more.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned . What has happened to
Britain’s global leadership since Glasgow? said today that he is there
in a purely supportive role, but he also said that Britain should
not pay reparations for climate change. This was in complete
contradiction to the Prime Minister’s announcement today that we
should enter into discussions about this question. Can the
Minister tell us what the Prime Minister needs to do to make sure
that his words are credible?
(Con)
I do not like the direction of that question. However, we have
encouraged discussion on loss and damage. Obviously, the Labour
Party has come out with a big initiative on reparations—which is
not funded—and it is very important that we join in the
discussion of loss and damage to try to find a joined-up way
forward, with support from around the world. The whole problem
about climate change, as I have said in the House so often, is
that it is an international challenge as well as a domestic
challenge.
(GP)
My Lords, following on from the question on loss and damage, the
Minister said that it was really important that there is
discussion. Have we not utterly arrived at the time when we need
action, given that loss and damage was kicked into the long
grass, taken out of the Glasgow climate pact and put into the
Glasgow dialogue instead? Denmark has promised loss and damage
money; Scotland has promised loss and damage money; and the
Belgian region of Wallonia has promised loss and damage money. If
the Government want to be world-leading, when are we going from
discussion to actual action and a promise of money? It is not the
same thing as adaptation finance.
(Con)
In my experience, you can only get action, especially in an
international context, if you have constructive discussion. In
terms of our contribution, the UK spent £2.4 billion on our
international climate finance between 2016 and 2020 on adaptation
and investment in areas that needed to address loss and damage.
The Scottish Government fund is £2 million.
(LD)
My Lords, there is no point in offering the least-developed
countries support for loss and damage if our Government are
removing funding from other areas of that community. For all the
figures that the Minister has stated today from the Dispatch Box,
how much is new money and how much of it is simply reallocated
from the arbitrary cap of 0.5%?
(Con)
We made very generous commitments to funding on climate change
last year. We are sticking to those; the Prime Minister made it
clear on the steps of Downing Street that he regarded protecting
the environment as very important. Sometimes you change the
priority which you give to different aspects of the climate
change matter, but that is the way to move forward and do things
better, and the announcements that have been made today are
directed exactly at that. I am delighted at the progress that is
being made today, but the question is whether the discussions
will deliver what we want over the next two weeks. We look
forward to reporting on that when COP 27 ends.
