Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had
with international counterparts about the commitment of
delivering $100 billion of climate financing made at COP 26, and
when they expect it to be met.
(LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on
the Order Paper and in doing so I declare my interest as chair of
the APPG for Africa’s inquiry into just energy transition.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy
Security and Net Zero () (Con)
My Lords, the UK COP 26 presidency published a delivery plan with
other contributors showing that we would meet the $100 billion
goal in 2023. At the Petersburg dialogue this May, developing
countries confirmed that we are on track. We have worked with the
Canadian and German Governments to publish an open letter at the
UN General Assembly explaining upcoming milestones. The UK and
other contributors are working with the OECD on a report by COP
28 on progress with regard to COP 21.
(LD)
I welcome the Minister’s Answer. Does he agree that the $100
billion target is just a fraction of what is needed? The capital
requirement for just energy transition in Africa alone is
estimated to be around $2 trillion to $3 trillion, yet the $100
billion target has been consistently missed in the past. Can the
Minister tell the House what plans there are to make up past
shortfalls, including the UK’s contribution, and what is the
Government’s strategy to crowd in the additional private capital
that will be so critical in meeting the challenges of energy
transition and climate change?
(Con)
The noble Lord makes some very good points. He may not have had
the chance to see it yet, but we published a WMS this morning
with details on our progress towards meeting the $100 billion
target—so his question is very well timed. He makes a good point
that, while government finance will be important, of course
private finance is equally important, including in the UK and
developing countries, towards meeting these goals.
(Con)
My Lords, women and girls are disproportionately impacted by
climate change. A recent report from the UNFPA highlighted that
rising temperatures have been linked to poorer maternal health
and that extreme weather events are exacerbating inequalities
because of the disruption to health services, including the loss
of access to contraception. Does the Minister recognise this and
will he also acknowledge that women are part of the solution,
particularly when it comes to mitigation and adaptation? How are
the Government ensuring that their climate finance properly
addresses the needs of women and girls?
(Con)
I know that my noble friend is a powerful advocate for women and
girls, both in this House and in the work she did in government.
She is of course absolutely right. The FCDO’s international women
and girls strategy sets out our commitment to increase the
proportion of our international climate finance that will be
gender-marked and to integrate gender and social inclusion
objectives into our climate finance programmes and
strategies.
(Lab)
My Lords, all these measures will come to nothing unless we
control the population of the world. What are the Government
doing to help achieve that aim? Will they publish figures on
their successes or failures?
(Con)
The noble Lord asks a good question, which is slightly beyond the
remit of the original Question. I point him to the answer that I
just gave to my noble friend: empowering women and girls, giving
them more control over their own reproductive rights, is very
important in this area.
(Con)
My Lords, I see that Janet Yellen, the American Treasury
Secretary, estimates that it will take around $81 trillion—I
repeat, $81 trillion—to get anywhere near the Paris targets by
2050. So, are we in the right ballpark at all in talking about
£100 billion? If we are, is there not a need to concentrate on
the gigantic coal burning of China, which is still around 1,000
times ours, as well as the huge coal burning of India and
America? These account for 60% of the world’s emissions
increases; is this not where the money should go?
(Con)
My noble friend of course makes an important point. My reaction
is that it is at least a start. Given the financial pressures on
many developing countries, it is important to start the financing
process. The £100 billion will be a commitment and will help many
poorer parts of the world. He is also right that we need to work
with China and the US to drive down their coal emissions. I am
delighted that, in this country, coal will be completely gone
from our power system by next year.
(CB)
My Lords, Britain has been very proud of its leadership position
on climate change—something that has taken a bit of a dent in the
last few weeks due to some of the rollbacks on climate change
targets. Specifically, the CCC last week published an assessment
of the Government’s recent net-zero announcements, stating that
they
“were not accompanied by estimates of their effect on future
emissions, nor evidence to back the Government’s assurance that
the UK’s targets will still be met”.
Will the Minister commit now to publish the evidence for Members
to scrutinise?
(Con)
I must disagree with the noble Baroness. There has not been any
rollback on the Government’s targets. There is a legally binding
commitment, which we will maintain, and of course we have a
number of legally binding carbon budgets, which we will also
maintain. We are adamant that we are on track to meet all of
them.
(LD)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Minister’s confirmation of the
UK’s role in international finance on climate change, but money
is not the only thing. Technological transfer and transfer of
expertise are equally important. Will the Minister tell us what
the UK Government are doing to ensure the transfer of expertise
and technology that we have in the UK, particularly in areas
where we lead, such as offshore wind and other technologies? Are
we working strongly to transfer that to economies in the south
who can use it even more than we can?
(Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. We are world leaders in many
technological developments. Offshore wind is one example,
floating offshore wind would be another, and a third would be the
deployment of solar technology, which could be immensely valuable
in many parts of the developing world. We share expertise through
the good offices of the Foreign Office as much as we possibly
can.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords—
(GP)
Green! Oh, sorry.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, it is reassuring to hear that the Government are
confident of meeting the commitments made at COP 26 in relation
to climate finance for adaptation and mitigation. Are the
Government equally confident that commitments made at COP 27 in
relation to the loss and damage fund will be not only met but
made fully operational?
(Con)
As far as I know, we are fully committed to meeting those
targets. We are very proud of our record and all the progress
that we have made, including at least £3 billion on mitigating,
protecting and restoring nature. We are on track to meet all our
commitments.
(Lab)
According to the International Institute for Sustainable
Development, over $1 trillion of public money has been poured
into fossil-fuel subsidies since COP 26, mainly in response to
the war in Ukraine. This eclipses tenfold the climate finance
initiatives made at COP 26. Do the Government accept that this
lack of long-term thinking about energy efficiency, onshore wind
and solar has left us vulnerable to these outside forces?
(Con)
I do not agree with the noble Lord. We have an extremely good
record on energy efficiency. To take one of his examples, we have
improved the number of properties that are EPC band C or above
from 14% when we came into office up to nearly 50% now.
Obviously, we need to make a lot more progress. We are spending
£6.5 billion in this Parliament on energy efficiency and have
already committed another £6 billion from 2025. We are doing
extremely well in this area.
(GP)
My Lords, the Minister may be aware that last week, coinciding
with the IMF meeting on reform priorities for tackling debt,
groups including Extinction Rebellion, Debt for Climate and Debt
Justice were outside the Bank of England highlighting the $7.9
trillion in climate reparations that are due to the global south
from the global north. He may also be aware that debt is
preventing climate action in the global south: five times the
amount of money is going on debt repayments than is going on
climate action. Are the Government at the forefront of leading on
action to deal with this debt crisis in the global south?
(Con)
We are proud of our record on helping the global south to relieve
its debts. We have one of the largest programmes of international
aid alongside our programmes on international climate finance. Of
course, there is always much to be done, but we can be very proud
of the record that this country maintains.
(Con)
My noble friend rightly mentions developing countries. He will
well know that the emphasis that he gives is much appreciated.
Within that, is he aware of the parlous state of the small
islands and the worry that they have about their future? Is he
prepared to make a commitment today that they in particular will
continue to be a priority for His Majesty’s Government?
(Con)
Of course I can give that commitment to my noble friend.
(CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register.
Reform of the international financial order is going to be high
on the agenda for COP 28. Do the Government support that reform
and, in particular, the measures set out in the Bridgetown
agenda?
(Con)
The Government are interested in the conversations that are
taking place on that. I cannot give the noble Baroness the
commitment that she requires but I will come back to her in
writing with the detail on that.
