Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made
towards establishing the processes necessary to implement the
‘side deals’ made at COP26 on (1) coal, (2) methane, (3) forests,
and (4) finance; and what discussions they have had with
international partners about their implementation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy () (Con)
My Lords, we are implementing progress in a number of ways,
including through, first, the Powering Past Coal Alliance, the
COP26 Energy Transition Council and the Just Energy Transition
Partnership with South Africa; secondly, the global methane
pledge, working closely with the US and the EU; thirdly, the
Glasgow leaders’ declaration on forests and land use; and,
fourthly, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, whose work
is being taken forward in dialogue with the Government,
businesses and civil society organisations.
(Ind Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. A number of pledges
for funding were made at COP 26 and, as I am sure he is fully
aware, 141 countries signed up to the Glasgow declaration on
forest and land use to halt land loss and deforestation by 2030.
In these circumstances, are the Government taking steps to stop
financial institutions operating in the UK funding businesses
that are linked to deforestation? The due diligence processes
proposed by the Government are of course very welcome, but could
more be done to stop the flow of money going to harmful
deforestation?
(Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I am sure there is
always more that can be done but we have made considerable
strides in terms of green finances, as I am sure she is aware. We
are working closely with the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net
Zero, now representing more than 450 financial firms with £130
trillion in assets, to make sure that private finance goes
towards green policies.
(Con)
My Lords, while all these deals are desirable—as are the main COP
26 aims, the net-zero aims and the Paris targets, if we can get
anywhere near them—is not the real need now, the urgent deal, to
restore some balance in all energy markets to avoid the kind of
super volatility of prices, appalling inflation, considerable
suffering for many households and the general economic disruption
that we face now and which, if it persists, means that we will
never get anywhere near the long-term aim of decarbonisation at
all?
(Con)
My noble friend makes a powerful point. We are seeing
unprecedented turbulence in the energy markets, with massive
rises in the prices of fossil fuels in particular. Ultimately,
the best solution to high prices in fossil fuels is to use less
of them, which is what we are trying to do.
(Lab)
My Lords, despite being a signatory to the Glasgow declaration on
forests, Brazil shows no sign of respecting its Glasgow
commitments. It recorded the most deforestation ever in the
Amazon rainforest in the month of January 2022, with 430 square
kilometres of forest destroyed. What actions do the Government
think will be effective for signatories that fail to make
progress, and what reporting is required?
(Con)
Clearly, Brazil signed up to the declaration at COP 26 along with
140 other countries covering over 90% of the world’s forest. It
is important for us to continue working with Brazil and countries
representing some 75% of trade in agricultural commodities to try
to move those countries’ trade towards more sustainable
means.
(LD)
My Lords, the IPCC estimates that spending on adaptation needs to
reach $127 billion per year for developing countries by 2030, but
at the moment adaptation spend accounts for just a fraction of
that, and for just 4.8% of tracked climate finance. Do the
Government accept that spending on adaptation and mitigation
needs to be equal? If so, is that something which will be
achieved during our year of the COP presidency?
(Con)
Clearly, we are working with other like-minded countries to try
to deliver the maximum resources possible for developing
countries to help them to adapt to the effects. I am very proud
of our contribution of £11.6 billion of international climate
finance over this five-year period.
(CB)
My Lords, methane, which the Minister mentioned, is 80 times as
potent as CO2 in the near term and cutting it fast is crucial.
Since the Industrial Revolution it has been responsible for 40%
of heating, and a staggering 47% of it comes from agriculture.
The good news—if there is good news—is that it dissipates
quickly, in 12 years, so if we can have rapid reduction of
methane, we can make a really big difference to the CO2 in the
atmosphere. There are two stumbling blocks. First, what are the
Government doing, and is it enough? Secondly, public information
is very low about the effect of methane. For instance, one-third
of farmers say they do not understand it or know how to deal with
it, so I ask the Government what they are doing about that.
(Con)
We were one of the first countries to sign up to the methane
pledge. Now over 110 countries have signed up to it, including 15
of the major emitters. We continue to explore policies to reduce
methane and all greenhouse gas emissions as we strive to reach
net zero.
(Con)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the effect
of all the bombing in Ukraine on the COP 26 agreement and our
net-zero aim?
(Con)
My noble friend makes a powerful point—clearly, it will have a
detrimental effect. We need to work with Ukraine to help it in
the future to rebuild its nation and make sure that Putin does
not succeed in his aim.
(GP)
My Lords, going back to methane and the global pledge the
Minister referred to, he may be aware of an article in
Environmental Science & Technology on Wednesday. Stanford
University researchers found using aerial data that New Mexico’s
Permian Basin is leaking six times as much methane as the US
Environmental Protection Agency has estimated. That global pledge
was utterly focused on stopping leaks and flaring. Surely the
amount of fugitive methane that fossil fuel operations create
means that to keep under the 1.5 degrees warming target we have
to end exploration and new production of oil and gas.
(Con)
I have not seen the article to which the noble Baroness refers.
It will probably come as a shock to her that I am not responsible
for New Mexico; that is part of the United States’ commitment.
All we can be responsible for are our own emissions and our own
policies. We are striving to reduce our fossil fuel production
and use in the UK, but it is a gradual phase-out. Rather than
using imported LNG from the likes of the areas she mentioned, it
makes more sense to use our own domestic production during that
transition period.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, do the Government consult with any of the many serious
scientists who say that net zero is a colossal mistake?
Noble Lords
Oh!
(Con)
We consult with lots of scientists. Of course, there are always
ongoing debates about these matters. Irrespective of the opinions
of particular scientists, there is now a legal commitment, and it
is the job of the Government to work towards what Parliament has
legislated for.
(CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register and
hope the Minister will keep listening to the IPCC and the
overwhelming scientific advice on this issue. In an earlier
reply, the Minister referred to GFANZ and the importance of
financial flows into green projects. Does he agree with me that
for those flows to be effective and genuinely go into green
projects, we need an international green taxonomy that is
respected? Can he give any more information on the working party
on green taxonomy?
(Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness; it is important that we get a
green taxonomy right, and the products and services that will
form part of it. We are working hard towards getting it finalised
in the UK. I cannot give her a precise timescale at the moment,
but we are determined to be a world leader in green finance.
(Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend tell us how much of the palm oil we
import comes from the process of deforestation in countries such
as Brazil? Should we not be aiming to reduce the amount of palm
oil we import from these sources?
(Con)
Deforestation is clearly a problem. I suspect most of the palm
oil we import does not come from Brazil. It is more likely to be
from Malaysia or Indonesia, as I think they are our largest
sources. Obviously, it needs to be sustainable. Palm oil can be a
very useful product—it can form foodstuffs and be part of a whole
range of consumer goods, but we must make sure it comes from
sustainable sources.
