Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether (1) the position of the
OPEC states, and (2) the lobbying of fossil fuel companies, at
the Dubai COP 28 have made it more difficult to achieve the goal
of limiting global temperature increase by 2050 to 1.5 degrees
Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy
Security and Net Zero () (Con)
My Lords, the UK Government do not comment on the positions of
different groups and countries. The UK worked tirelessly with all
parties to push for an ambitious outcome at COP 28 that keeps 1.5
degrees within reach, and we welcome the deal reached this
morning, which is the first time that there has been a global
agreement to transition away from fossil fuels. It maintains the
Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees
centigrade.
(Lab)
My Lords, I join with the Minister in accepting that the current
draft is a darn sight better than the dreadful draft presented
two days ago, but it is still, sadly, deficient. In the run-up to
the COP, we not only saw the petrostates and fossil-fuel
companies trying to derail any reference to fossil fuels in the
agreement; we also saw the IPCC and the scientists warning us
that we were well off the Paris trajectory towards 1.5 degrees,
to which we are all supposed to be signed up. Perhaps we also
ought to acknowledge that any improvement due to the UK
Government’s intervention was down to our own Minister, the noble
Lord, , with the actual leader of the
British delegation being called back from saving the world to
saving the Prime Minister. Is not this Government’s moral
authority to persuade smaller, more vulnerable and poorer nations
to adopt a net-zero policy sadly undermined by our continued
licensing of oil and gas extraction in the North Sea and other
retreats from our green policies? Can the Minister give us a date
for abandoning those polices?
(Con)
There was a whole series of questions in the noble Lord’s
statement. This was an international agreement, involving almost
200 countries. Is it perfect? Is it everything we would have
wanted? No, but it is certainly a great achievement by our
extremely hard-working negotiating team. I do not agree with the
noble Lord on the second part of his question about licensing and
increased production in the North Sea. Even if they come on
stream, the output in the North Sea will still continue to
decline and we are still committed to phasing out oil and gas
production.
(Con)
Will my noble friend reflect that it is not just carte blanche?
There will be situations where an oil company finds a new field,
perhaps like the one 200 miles north of the Falklands, where the
quality of the oil is far better than the oil that we produce in
the North Sea, and it would make economic sense to substitute one
for the other in the future. Then at some stage, that field will
be reduced. It is not absolutely static, is it? We now want a
situation where the industry decreases but at the same time
improves the product.
(Con)
My noble friend is right, in that different circumstances will
apply to many countries, but we are very clear about the
trajectory that we are on. We need to bear in mind that this is a
transition. It cannot happen overnight, but we are clear on the
direction in which we are travelling.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, do the Government now regret their decision to recall
our Climate Change Minister 6,831 miles to London, putting party
before planet? As a nation, we were not adequately represented at
the crucial point in these negotiations. Is it not the truth of
the matter that the Conservatives have prioritised their own
local difficulties over crucial negotiations to tackle the
climate emergency?
(Con)
I am sorry, my Lords, but that really is a nonsensical question.
is a Member of Parliament and
has duties to perform in Parliament. The negotiating team were in
constant contact with him, all the time. He flew back out to COP
last night. Our own Minister, my noble friend , was there as well, occupying
the UK chair, alongside the fantastic team of negotiators, who
held the pen for many of the negotiations and secured some
far-reaching commitments in line with UK’s policy objectives.
(CB)
Now that we have reached an agreement in Dubai, is the Minister
sill completely confident that the UK will reach our target of a
68% reduction on NDC by the end of 2030? As has been mentioned
often in this House, we have rolled back on some of our
commitments, such as those on electric vehicles and various other
things, and I cannot believe they will not have an impact on that
target. Can I have the Minister’s reassurance that he will
publish the Government’s evidence base that the things which have
recently taken place, in terms of rollback, will not affect the
crucial outcome?
(Con)
I can happily tell the noble Baroness that we remain committed to
all our targets.
The Lord
My Lords, I assume the Minister will be aware of the large amount
of lobbying taking place, not only at the COP but around the COP
through social media. One oil company is estimated to have spent
$1.8 million on TikTok videos alone, seen by millions of people
across the world, and helping to spread climate disinformation.
Does the Minister think the Government should be doing more
through the Counter-Disinformation Unit to challenge climate
disinformation, given the scale of what is happening and the risk
to the world of the failure to curb emissions?
(Con)
I understand the point that the right reverend Prelate is making,
but one person’s disinformation is another person’s free choice
and free speech. There is always robust debate about all of these
issues. There will be continue to be robust political debate
about it, and I think that is right in a democratic society. We
are very clear on the policy that we should be following and that
we are committed to. We are committed to net zero; it is a legal
obligation. The Government are committed to that trajectory.
(LD)
My Lords, the agreed wording of COP 28 in the small hours of this
morning does not go far enough, given that scientific consensus
is strongly in favour of a phase-out of fossil fuels.
Nevertheless, this is what we have signed up to. Can the Minister
say whether the Government will publish a plan to say how they
will meet our commitment to
“Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a
just … and equitable manner, accelerating”
—and that is a key word—
“action in this critical decade”.
(Con)
We are into semantics and wording, but a transition away with
clear deadlines is, in our view, a phase-out in all but name. It
is not the language that we would have preferred, but in a
multilateral negotiation there has to be compromise. We are very
clear on the trajectory we are following. We have published
numerous plans about our transition. We are accelerating the
rollout of renewables and reducing our use of oil and gas, and
that will continue.
(Lab)
My Lords, I too recognise today’s COP agreement as an important
moment for the world. It is the first time there has been a
global commitment to a transition away from fossil fuels. There
will always be those vested interests pushing back, as there was
at COP. The reality is that limiting global warming to 1.5
degrees still requires much to change. Despite the Minister’s
attempts to reassure us, it was disappointing that, when their
leadership was most needed at COP, our Government put their party
infighting first. To keep 1.5 degrees alive, they will need to do
better and lead by example. Therefore, as a result of the
statement released this morning, what plans do the Government
have to show strong international leadership and to make sure
that we bring in the changes of direction needed? Are there any
plans for changes at this moment in time or not?
(Con)
I repeat the answer I gave earlier: these statements demean the
noble Baroness. The UK provided fantastic leadership. We have an
official, Alison Campbell, who co-chaired a number of the panels.
She was the penholder on a number of these negotiations. We
succeeded in all of our aims. There was robust political
leadership; was there. For a lot of the
time, our own Minister, my noble friend , was there. There were many
other Ministers who were also there. There was no gap in UK
representation or in the agreements that we achieved.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords—
(Con)
My Lords—
(Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, whatever about the lobbyists from the fossil fuel
companies, do the Government have any assessment of the cost in
terms of CO2 used to travel to Dubai, or in terms of public money
paid to facilitate the tens of thousands of pro-net zero
lobbyists, NGOs and consultants who attended COP 28? Can the
Minister reflect on the impact for developing countries of not
using fossil fuels when they are so essential for enabling their
citizens to achieve the prosperity of western economies?
(Con)
On this issue of lobbying, tens of thousands of people were at
COP, representing a whole series of different shades of opinion.
Of course, there were lobbyists from all sides, but that does not
mean you have to agree with the position that they take. A wide
range of views were represented; I said to the noble Lord, , when he asked me something
similar last week, that you listen to the views, and there are
lots of people having meetings around it, lobbying groupings and
so on, but the negotiation is done by committed teams of
officials who probably do not watch any of the TikTok videos that
the right reverend Prelate referred to. However, as I said
earlier, the needs of countries are also different in different
environments. We are fortunate, being a relatively wealthy
country, that we can transition away from fossil fuels. It is
much more difficult for some third-world countries, which is why
we are offering them considerable amounts of finance—we have
£11.6 billion of international climate finance with which to help
them with the transition. We are leading on initiatives such as
the Powering Past Coal Alliance, which helps developing countries
to move away from coal-fired power stations as well. So we are
taking a range of different initiatives in collaboration and
co-operation with a number of different other countries.
