Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the outcome of COP 27; and what plans they have to address the
issues raised at the conference.
(Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on
the Order Paper, and I make the House aware of my register of
interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy () (Con)
My Lords, COP 27 established a new fund for responding to loss
and damage as part of other funding arrangements relevant for
loss and damage. This is significant in supporting the most
vulnerable. New pledges were also made to the Adaptation Fund
totalling more than $230 million. However, we had to fight at COP
27 to keep 1.5 degrees alive. While we were disappointed not to
make progress on fossil fuels, the deal does preserve the Glasgow
climate pact.
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. I had the
privilege of attending COP 27 with rewired.earth, a
not-for-profit organisation. Like many, we were very concerned at
the low level of agreement and ambition for the future. With the
war in Ukraine, the energy crisis and the cost of living crisis,
it is understandable but very worrying that there was not more
emphasis on the net-zero approach. Global emissions remain at a
record level and the world is on track for warming well in excess
of 2 degrees. I believe Britain can be at the forefront of
solving the problem. What mechanisms have the Government put in
place to ensure joined-up, consistent policy-making between
departments so that policies are aligned with and do not put in
jeopardy our pull towards delivering on climate?
(Con)
I agree with the noble Lord’s initial comments about COP. I think
it is worth being a little optimistic, in that over 90% of world
GDP is now covered by net-zero commitments and 169 countries have
put forward new or updated 2030 NDCs. However, I entirely agree
with him that there is a lot more progress still to be made. This
Government are very proud of our record. We have the
world-leading net-zero commitment in law and all government
departments are working together to deliver that.
(CB)
My Lords, one of the most significant challenges outlined at COP
27 was the rapidly increasing use of single-use plastics
globally. The United Kingdom is one of the worst offenders, with
almost 99 kilograms per person. What are the Government doing to
address this and transition to more sustainable alternatives?
(Con)
The Government have taken a number of measures—I point the noble
Lord to the tax on single-use plastic bags—but clearly there is a
lot more that we need to do. I know that colleagues in Defra are
working on this.
(Con)
My Lords, I praise the Government on all their work so far on the
climate issue. Could my noble friend tell the House whether they
have plans to embed into the United Kingdom standards in the
upcoming Financial Services and Markets Bill the recommendations
of the UN high-level expert group on the net-zero pledges of
non-state entities, such as pension funds, to ensure that our
massive, long-term institutional investor money will support net
zero and green growth?
(Con)
I am sorry to tell my noble friend that I am not responsible for
the financial services Bill. I would be very happy to get
Treasury colleagues to write to her.
(LD)
My Lords, could I ask the Minister about our overseas
investments? It is important that we put our money where our
mouth is. Since announced that we would stop
supporting fossil fuels overseas nearly two years ago, what, if
any, investments have been made into fossil fuels through British
International Investment, UK Export Finance or one of their
subsidiaries? If he does not know the answer, would he write to
me?
(Con)
As far as I am aware, the Prime Minister’s pledge has been kept.
If that is not the case, I will certainly write to the noble
Baroness.
(Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the UK’s share of the
cost of reparations relating to damage from greenhouse emissions
will be borne solely by the ultra-rich? Research shows that
billionaires are responsible for a million times more greenhouse
emissions than the average person.
(Con)
If the noble Lord is referring to the UK’s taxation system, it is
clear that those at the top end of the scale pay the largest
amounts of taxation by far. If that translates through to our
international climate commitments, where we are proud to be
contributing something like £11 billion, then I suppose in a
strange way the noble Lord gets his wish.
(Con)
My Lords, the main problem at COP 27, and the main
disappointment, was that it failed to address the central and
crucial issue of rapidly rising global carbon emissions. In light
of that, is it not time to reassess our own contribution to
meeting this crisis, recognising that a 1% reduction in
emissions, which our net zero might achieve, is all right, but it
is only an example and an example is not going to be enough. We
have to think in terms of mobilising old and new technologies on
a massive scale with other countries to begin to bring the
temperature down from the 2 to 2.5 degrees centigrade it is
heading to, and curb the otherwise inevitable climate violence
which will hurt a lot of people.
(Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point of course. Our 1% is not
going to make a massive difference, but there are also
opportunities attached to it. Our rollout of renewables is going
extremely well. We have one of the largest selections of offshore
renewables in the world, which has enabled the cost to come down.
It is an example we have set through our contracts for difference
scheme, and now renewables—particularly offshore wind
renewables—are coming in at a fraction of the cost of fossil-fuel
generation, so the market is also helping to drive these matters,
and of course provides excellent export potential for our
industries.
(Lab)
My Lords, as well as the net-zero priorities highlighted at COP
27, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has of course underlined the
need to move away from oil and gas and on to homegrown, cheap,
clean energy sources that guarantee our energy security. Why have
the Government been doubling down on this in regard to fossil
fuels, including the loophole to save generators’ profits, while
continuing to block the cheapest, cleanest, quickest forms of
power —onshore wind and solar?
(Con)
As I said in response to the previous question, we have one of
the fastest rollouts of renewables in the developed world. We
have the second largest share of offshore wind after China, but
there is undoubtedly still a need for gas as a transition fuel.
It makes sense therefore to use that transition fuel from our own
North Sea resources, rather than importing it, in a very
carbon-heavy manner, in LNG.
(CB)
My Lords, when we were in Egypt, the UK Government signed up to
the global methane pledge, which commits to a cut in global
methane emissions by 30% by 2030, though we have not yet set any
domestic targets. Bearing in mind that 80% of methane stems from
agriculture and waste, will the Government consider bringing
forward the UK’s ban on landfilling biodegradable waste, better
biogas capture from landfill and better slurry management?
(Con)
The noble Baroness raises an important point. I am happy to tell
her that, through our green gas levy and support scheme, we are
continuing to support the rollout of biomethane—an understated
industry in the UK but one doing extremely well—and we need to
align our food waste policies to produce even more
biomethane.
(Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is well aware of the devastating
effects of climate change on countries such as Somalia and India
and Pakistan. In Somalia, there were first floods and then
drought. I am therefore very pleased to hear that the Government
have worked closely at COP 27 to secure compensation. Will my
noble friend agree that that framework needs to ensure that the
money goes to the people who really need it—those families and
children who are currently dying?
(Con)
I agree with the point made by my noble friend. We will need to
make sure that, when the fund is up and running and established,
it goes to the people who really need it, which is sadly not the
case with some other UN funds.
(Lab)
My Lords, in addition to the steps we need to take to curtail our
use of excavation of fossil fuels, we need to do something about
the consumption of those fossil fuels. What are the Government
doing, in terms of our use in industry, home heating and
transport systems, to cut down on the demand for fossil fuels and
to make sure that all those sectors start to move very quickly
towards using renewable energy?
(Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. Energy efficiency
should be our first port of call, and indeed it is. Over this
Parliament, we are spending £6.6 billion on home energy
efficiency measures. In the mini-Statement a couple of weeks ago,
the Chancellor announced additional funding of another £6 billion
from 2025. We are currently consulting on the £1 billion ECO+
energy conservation scheme. We are looking at additional measures
in terms of regulation that we would also need to introduce, and
that is just on the domestic side. On the industrial side, we
have a suite of measures—the industrial decarbonisation fund, et
cetera—to help industry to cut back on its emissions and to save
energy as well. Energy efficiency should always be our first port
of call, and I agree with the noble Baroness.
