Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what they aim to achieve at COP
28 this week.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy
Security and Net Zero () (Con)
My Lords, we want progress in five areas: ambitious new
commitments and action, including a pathway to keep 1.5 degrees
centigrade within reach of the global stock-take; scaling up
clean energy through commitment to triple renewables, double
energy efficiency and moving beyond fossil fuels; progress on
finance reform, delivering on $100 billion for developing
economies; building resilience to climate impacts, including
doubling adaptation finance and establishing a loss and damage
fund; and, finally, progress towards restoring nature.
(CB)
I thank the Minister for his reply. As he will know, one
particular focus at COP 28 is the agricultural sector, and in
particular how it will be possible to reconcile feeding a growing
world population and reducing the very extensive emissions from
the agricultural sphere. Can he say a little bit more about what
kind of agreement we are likely to see at the end of COP in
relation to the agricultural area?
(Con)
The noble and right reverend Lord makes an important point.
Agriculture is one of the most difficult areas to decarbonise. It
is of course linked into a lot of the action that has been taken
on nature. It is one of our priority areas and we will be doing
what we can to progress agreement.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, information uncovered this week by the Centre for
Climate Reporting purports to show that the UAE is planning to
use its role as the host of COP 28 as an opportunity to strike a
new generation of oil and gas deals in Africa and Asia. Does the
Minister agree that the oil sustainability programme is
completely contrary to the letter and the spirit of the global
climate talks? What action will the UK Government be taking in
considering this new information?
(Con)
Obviously, the reports that we saw in the last few days were
concerning, but of course we are not aware of what was discussed
in private meetings. The UAE presidency was not appointed by us,
but we support it in what it has said publicly in terms of
advocating for an ambitious deal.
(CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The
Government announced in September that they were renewing our
membership of the Energy Charter Treaty. Does the Minister agree
that the treaty, and our membership of it, does nothing to
support the objectives of COP 28 that he has just outlined to the
House? Will a decision be made before COP 28 meets to withdraw,
as other countries have done, from this outdated and damaging
treaty?
(Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. As she mentioned, we
are reviewing our membership. I do not know when a decision will
be taken. I hesitate to use the word “imminently” after the last
question, but I am sure that we will want to act as quickly as
possible.
(Lab)
My Lords, staggeringly, we lose more than 15 million trees
globally each year due to deforestation. The Center for Global
Development predicts that we will lose at least 1 million square
miles of forested land by 2050. Can the Government give an update
on their pledge to the COP 26 to reverse deforestation by 2030?
Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government will use
COP 28 as an opportunity to reconsider this key commitment?
(Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. We helped to secure an
agreement on the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework
to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030, and the agreement
on marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. We
were pleased to support that during our COP presidency and want
to continue doing so.
(GP)
My Lords, a big part of the UK’s COP 26 presidency during the
Glasgow conference was the global methane pledge: the focus on
methane and the fact that in the next 10 years, slashing our
methane emissions will be crucial if we are to stay below the 1.5
degrees above pre-industrial levels. What progress do the
Government expect to see on methane in COP 28? Will the
Government be taking further progress in the UK, particularly on
methane flaring from oil and gas installations, to the COP
discussions?
(Con)
The noble Baroness is right that action on methane is important.
It is one of the focuses for discussion that we will take
forward. I have answered questions on flaring before in this
House. She will remember that we are taking action to eliminate
flaring completely by the end of the decade. It has reduced
considerably in recent years, but clearly we need to go
further.
(Lab)
My Lords, the richest 1% are responsible for more carbon
emissions than the poorest 66% combined. We all know that a
well-established principle is that the polluter must pay. The
Government now have a choice. They can levy wealth taxes on the
ultra-rich, to reduce their capacity to pollute, or let the
climate crisis deepen. Which of these options will the Government
exercise, given that they are keen to set the intellectual agenda
for COP 28?
(Con)
The noble Lord never disappoints in terms of his advocacy for
more taxes on—well, everyone, effectively. He might want to talk
to his own Front Bench about some of these policies. The UK is
very proud of our record on decarbonisation and we are very proud
of our record on helping the poorest communities. We have
committed £11.6 billion of expenditure on international climate
finance by 2025-26, including £3 billion to protect, restore and
sustainably manage nature, and tripling the UK fund for
adaptation to £1.5 billion by 2025—so we can be proud of our
record.
(LD)
With regard to adaptation, nature and resilience, the Minister
outlined the overall level of commitment, but in the latest
rounds of ODA allocation this has been cut by £24 million for the
most vulnerable countries around the world. This is a reduction
of 49% to developing nations. Does the Minister agree that COP
gives a superb opportunity for any UK representatives to give a
statement that those cuts will be restored for the most
vulnerable nations on earth?
(Con)
Well, I just said in my previous answer that we have not reduced
our commitment to international climate finance and all the
various areas that it covers. The Prime Minister and senior
Ministers are attending COP 28 and the noble Lord might want to
watch for any announcements that are made at that point.
(Lab)
Perhaps I might ask the Minister: what does success at COP 28 for
the UK look like?
(Con)
I do not want to repeat the five points that I have made.
Obviously, we want to make progress on all of them. That is
probably unrealistic; it is a negotiation and there are many
countries with different agendas going into it, but we will
negotiate in good faith and the overall pledge to take action on
1.5 degrees is probably going to be the most important point, but
there are a number of other important negotiating points as
well.
(LD)
My Lords, we get quite a lot of our gas from the UAE. What
assessment have our Government made of the pollution caused by
the flaring and venting of methane by that state?
(Con)
Flaring and venting is something to be avoided by all member
states. The noble Baroness is right that we do import a lot of
liquid natural gas. Of course, if she and others were not so keen
to halt the UK’s extraction of oil and gas, we would not need to
import so much from the UAE. So perhaps she might want to indulge
in a little bit of introspection.
(GP)
My Lords, since there is space, an issue that is fast rising up
the climate agenda is private jet flights, which of course have
enormous levels of carbon emissions per passenger. Are the
Government looking to examine the impact of those private jet
flights, and indeed to take any action about flights into the
UK?
(Con)
The noble Baroness asks the question on the day that the first
international flight with sustainable aviation fuel was launched
by, I think, Virgin Atlantic, across to the US. Obviously, that
is only one and there is a lot of progress to be made, but
sustainable aviation fuel does offer one of a range of potential
solutions. I know that the noble Baroness would just ban
everything, but that is not practical in the real world. We want
to show people that of course we can make progress on progressing
the agenda against climate change, but not necessarily by banning
everything they want to do.
(Lab Co-op)
My Lords, perhaps I might say how pleased I am, personally, to
see that the Minister has escaped the recent cull. Does he agree
with me that, on balance, it is probably justifiable to use all
this energy travelling to the United Arab Emirates for the Prime
Minister and senior Ministers to come to an agreement—maybe even
for the First Minister of Scotland to go there, using up all this
energy as well? But what is the justification for the leader of
Glasgow City Council, and entourage, doing it?
(Con)
When the noble Lord started off with praise, I was waiting for
the “but” to come into the question. The noble Lord will be
pleased to know that I am not going to COP. My Secretary of State
is there, with a number of other Ministers from the Government. I
do not know what council leaders are going for, or what their
role is going to be; that is something that they will need to
answer for to their own electorates.
