UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

David Mowat Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Yeo]

I certainly do not dissent from the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the effects. We are at a sensitive stage in the nuclear negotiations and this may be another unhelpful dimension. I would like to see a rational approach. There is an important role for nuclear, alongside a lot of other low-carbon technologies, but we need to get it at the best value for money for electricity consumers and the competitive position of British business.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I wish to follow up on the point made by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). A subsidy for new nuclear would be more defensible, but the issue is that it is a subsidy for existing nuclear, which makes no sense whatever. I reiterate the point made by the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo): such a differential between us and the rest of the EU could wipe out large parts of the process industry in the north of England. It is not tenable—not at all.

[Mr Yeo]

My hon. Friend is right about the difference between new and old nuclear, and I take his point. I reiterate that my Committee and I are wholly opposed to the floor price for carbon, which is a tax. It is not a green measure, although it was introduced as one, and it was never going to have that effect. I am a great supporter of the concept of emissions trading and a great advocate of more urgent action to accelerate the introduction of low-carbon technology. The floor price for carbon will not do anything to achieve those objectives.

[Mr Yeo]

The hon. Gentleman makes a telling point. It is clear that, even in the Treasury, the floor price is simply seen as a way to extract revenue, but it has chosen to do that in a way that is particularly damaging to some sections of British business. Incidentally, his thoughtful intervention has given me time to remember that, in opening, I should have drawn attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declared an interest in a number of energy businesses. I reiterate, as I have on previous occasions, that those interests were acquired long after my views on these subjects were formed 20 years ago, when I had some ministerial responsibility for the matter.

I shall touch briefly on one or two other recommendations. The Government agree with the Committee that we should work with industrial sectors and stakeholders to develop a sectoral trading scheme between developed and developing nations. The Government also accepted the Committee’s recommendation that the second commitment period of the Kyoto protocol should last eight years and include a review clause to allow for more ambitious emissions targets, if necessary. They also agree that efforts should be focused on developing the Durban platform, because countries such as Canada, Russia and Japan were unlikely to sign up to a second Kyoto period.

I share the concern of some commentators that more progress has not been made towards closing the emissions gap. Without wishing to provoke my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) into too much anger, I will quote Lord Stern, whose comments on it were apt. He said that

“there has been, yet again, a very big mismatch between the scale and urgency of action required to effectively manage the huge risks of climate change, and the political will and ambition that has been displayed in Doha. Current commitments and pledges by countries to reduce emissions by 2020 are clearly not consistent with the goal of giving the world a reasonable chance of avoiding global warming of more than 2 centigrade degrees. We are headed on current plans for likely increases of 3 centigrade degrees or more”.

He has more to say, but I think I have perhaps said enough on that point.

The Government also supported the Committee’s view that a target of a 30% emissions reduction by 2020 should be set at EU level, and the view that that would be in the UK’s long-term economic, as well as environmental, interest.

I will leave other members of the Committee to address some of the report’s other recommendations, because I want to allow a little more time, if possible, for the second debate, which is on low-carbon links with China. The process that we consider in the report and are debating this afternoon remains important and, frustrating though it is, I am glad that the Government continue to participate fully and constructively in it.

[David Mowat]

My hon. Friend makes a point that I have been reflecting on. He says that his Committee is of the view that a 30% cap is in the UK’s long-term economic interest. For my own education, will he tell me the main thrust of the argument on how that long- term interest will be met by that?

[Mr Yeo]

Gladly. I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that point. I was suggesting a 30% target for the EU, rather than for just the UK. I believe it is highly probable that global concern about climate change will intensify substantially in the next 15 to 20 years, and that by the mid-2020s large areas of the globe will be covered by emissions trading and have carbon pricing mechanisms. It is also likely that that will be supplemented, in many countries, by carbon taxes. If that turns out to be the case—of course, I cannot be sure it will—I believe that countries that have moved more quickly towards low-carbon transport systems and electricity generation, and energy-efficient low-carbon buildings of all kinds, will have an economic advantage, as well as their having done the right thing environmentally. The probability is that in that situation the costs attached to fossil fuel consumption will become very high.

I entirely accept that if my expectation is wrong, and if concern about climate change decreases rather than increases, with the world being quite happy to burn huge quantities of coal and gas, my judgment will turn out to have been wrong and a fairly small competitive disadvantage will have been suffered by countries that chose to diversify their energy mix in the way I suggest.

There are also energy security reasons for not saying, “Let’s bet the farm on gas.” I look at what has happened to gas prices in the past five or six years, the International Energy Agency projections for gas consumption, particularly in Asia, and the possibility of planning difficulties with the uncontrolled roll-out of shale gas developments in this country, and I think that in policy terms it is rash to believe, “We have a secure energy future by saying it’s all going to come from gas.” I strongly favour a diverse mix, with nuclear, low-carbon renewables and much more emphasis on energy efficiency—a true “no regrets” policy. Countries adopting that model are likely to be in a better position in the 2020s and might have a big competitive advantage.

[David Mowat]

I agree with what I think is the point that the Chairman of the Select Committee is making, which is that if the world continues to show great concern about climate change, the first movers might have an advantage. Does it not give him pause for thought, though, that the EU in particular now appears to be showing some reluctance on building in a persistent competitive disadvantage to the United States? That would be one interpretation of the vote this week. If that were to become more pervasive, it would create some issues with respect to my hon. Friend’s analysis.

[Mr Yeo]

I do not want to get too distracted by that, but the terms of trade in the debate have clearly shifted a lot in the past year or so. The two big factors are, first, that the recession seems to be longer and worse that we had thought—not just in this country, but across the EU, although perhaps for slightly different reasons, and, secondly, the extent of the competitive advantage that shale gas now gives the US. Despite all that, if we say, “Okay, that’s fine. Let’s not bother with nuclear or low-carbon renewables, it’s all going to be gas,” we might find that we are buying gas expensively from a variety of places, which might even include America.

We would not have done much for our competitive position if we landed up completely dependent on fossil fuel imports, the price of which would be completely outside our control, and even the supply of which might not be wholly reliable. I point to the views of all sorts of businesses that are not green-dreaming tree huggers—some are not even connected with the energy industry—but which clearly feel that an energy mix involving a variety of technologies is a better bet than complete reliance on fossil fuels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lilley]

Well, that is fine. Let it go ahead.

[David Mowat]

I just wanted to put my tuppence-worth into the example from Tanzania. If that were the way forward at scale, China would not be building 50 unabated coal stations every year. That is what is happening, but it does not mean that solar power cannot power laptops in Tanzania. The proof is in the pudding. I want to go back to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley). Where does he see nuclear?

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions are too long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lilley]

I take all those points, and I probably did give the wrong date for the Chinese. However, I remember also seeing their figure for further ahead, which was not much higher. There would be a large increase in the amount of renewables, but not in the percentage of renewables, and still the vast bulk of their energy will come from conventional sources.

We can make ourselves feel better by bigging up in our mind the amount of renewables and by getting warm feelings about the sight of solar panels bringing light to small villages in isolated parts of Africa. However, if we seriously imagine that these great jamborees will result in an agreement by the countries in the developing world to constrain significantly their ability to grow by constraining their ability to use fossil fuels, we are living in a dream world, and everything that has happened in this debate suggests that the majority of Members present for it are part of that dream.

[David Mowat]

I will make a quick intervention to point out that we are saying that fossil fuel usage is a developing world phenomenon—it is not. The EU is increasing its use of coal. Last year, the increase of coal use in the EU was significant. For example, it is one of the reasons why Germany has much higher carbon usage than we do, both per head and per unit of GDP.

[Mr Lilley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, Germany is moving away from renewables, if one counts nuclear as a renewable. It is moving away from nuclear. It is planning to close down all its nuclear plants, and by and large that will mean replacing them with fossil fuel plants instead. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) want to intervene?

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

I think that the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden will not dispute the fact that we are living through the greatest period of extinctions that has been known in the fossil record; he has not disputed that. What he has sought to dispute is whether it is in any way linked to a change in climate, and therefore whether it is in any way linked to the rise in the use of fossil fuels. He should look at the way in which species are migrating—he talked about a loss of habitat, but the reason why there is a loss of habitat in many parts of the world is, of course, because of the change in climate, which has actually destroyed the habitat that used to be there. I do not think that he can separate out, in the way that he seeks to, the effects of climate change from the effects of habitat destruction. To do so is precisely to ignore what is going on.

We have to understand that 50% of the GDP of the poorest people in the world is dependent on their immediate environment, and it is that immediate environment that is under such significant threat. In parts of Africa, we have seen whole habitats destroyed. I sometimes wonder why we spend millions of pounds protecting our vessels as they pass the coasts of Ethiopia and Somalia but never give a thought as to why the pirates that we are protecting them from are there in the first place. Of course, they are there in large part because of the desertification that has taken place in that part of Africa—because of the loss of agriculture and of economic opportunities there. Not to link what is happening with climate change to the sustainable development goals would be a serious error indeed.

Let us consider the Durban platform for enhanced action that has been established, and let us look at the way in which, by 2015, we are to try and arrive at an agreement between countries as to what will happen in 2020 in respect of the commitments made there. Many hon. Members have talked of the difficulty in securing those commitments and the difficulty of some countries agreeing their programme of action without certainty and knowledge of what other countries are prepared to do. Russia, Canada and Japan have been mentioned as examples. These are extremely difficult negotiations because, as the Committee’s report acknowledges, every country will act in its own national interest. During the negotiations, we have been true to form and have very often acted in our national interest as well.

I would challenge the Minister on some of the positions that our country has adopted in the negotiations. Let us consider the position that we have adopted with respect to Russia. We have been saying, “With all the hot air that they had after the demise of the Soviet Union, they have arrived in a much more fortunate position, and we want now to discount that.” But in that negotiation any Russian with common sense would say simply, “Look, our economy suffered an enormous transition—an enormous hit on our domestic economy. We’ve paid the price for being in the position that we are now in, with that hot air, with those emissions credits.”

The original intention of Kyoto was simply that we should see the reduction below 1990 levels. Perhaps due to the collapse of the old Soviet economy, Russia has achieved that reduction, but it has not achieved it without substantial cost. That is just one example of the way in which the negotiations that we believe we are entering into in good faith may be perceived by the other side as negotiations that are not being conducted in good faith. Sometimes we have to look much more carefully at the principles of equity when we consider how one reaches a just settlement in this area.

For example, in discussions that are often entered into about what is happening in China and India—we will debate China more specifically later—we often say, “These are the emerging economies and emerging powers and, of course, China is building so many more coal-fired power stations and its emissions are growing at a tremendous rate.” Yet somebody in India will say, “Yes, but let’s look at our population and let’s see what our emissions per capita are.” They will say that, in India, the emissions are approximately 2 tonnes per capita, whereas in this country they are well into double figures and in America they are probably 10 times what the average Indian would expend.

We have all entered into the negotiations at the UNFCCC from a position of national self-interest. Unless we understand that this is genuinely a boat in which we all either sink or float, we will not arrive at a resolution that is fair and has any chance of success.

[David Mowat]

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s analysis, particularly in respect of the national point and Russia. Some countries—how can I put this?—might benefit from climate change, including Russia, because there is a lot of tundra there. I wonder whether the COP might look at the possibility of globally taking advantage of that phenomenon, given that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) may be right in saying that we are not going to stop coal being burned at the present rate.

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I do point out that he has conceded that climate change is real, and that it will have a differential effect in different parts of the globe. It is difficult to predict what that differential effect will be, but one of the core predictions is that there is every expectation that parts of Russia that are now tundra and unfarmable will gradually be released as good agricultural land. Therefore, from the Russian point of view, climate change, if and when it happens, will not be a significant problem. However, the problem is that with the release of that land into farmable condition, a lot of methane will be released into the atmosphere, which will turbo-charge the process. But the hon. Gentleman is right to mention that.

The international negotiations must take on board the fact that although there are real downsides for some economies—indeed, small island states are in danger not just of their economy, but of their whole territory going down the pan—countries such as Canada and Russia may make substantial economic gains through this process. That is why we cannot simply go into the negotiations with the viewpoint that climate change is a universal disaster and we must stop it at all costs. We have to understand that some people expect to gain and some expect to lose. That makes these negotiations all the more intractable, and makes it more difficult to get a just resolution. I absolutely endorse the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[David Mowat]

It might be a more fertile route for the world to look at that interaction between those that are gaining and losing, rather than trying to stop what would appear to be the unstoppable, in terms of coal burning at scale.

[Barry Gardiner]

The negotiations absolutely have to consider where the balance of costs and benefit lies and take that into account. Without doing that, we will not get anywhere; I agree.

The funding of the climate negotiations process is critical. I congratulate the Government on the way in which our country has stepped up to the plate with the short-term funding committed in 2009 through to 2012. They have delivered that, if not 100%—it may be 100%—then pretty damn close to 99%. They have not just committed and delivered the funding, but ensured that 50% of it went to adaptation. Many countries that promised such start-up funding committed themselves to the principle of at least 50% going to adaptation but then did not deliver. It is absolutely vital that such commitments are honoured, because they are the ones that build trust into the negotiation. When countries see other nations commit funds and then deliver them in the way that has been promised, it builds trust into the whole process.

When Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the UNFCCC, came to London in January and spoke in the Locarno suite of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, she made it clear that the only way in which we would achieve success on the Durban platform and see a resolution and a conclusion to the negotiations in 2015 was to build trust at national level. She made it clear that any agreement in 2015 would as much reflect what was going on at the national level—the legislation that was being passed and the regulations and policies that were being enacted by Governments—as it would define climate legislation into the future.

For many years, Governments across the world appeared to think that all we needed to do to solve the problem of climate was to get together and reach a legally binding agreement. Well, that was always a chimera; it was never going to be the case because, no matter what Governments agree to, it must be brought back and legislated on in their Parliaments. That legislation must then be implemented. Funds have to be voted to ensure that the legislation is implemented properly and fully, and the implementation must be monitored, audited and carried out.

That is why I refer to the study launched by Christiana Figueres in the Locarno suite—the GLOBE International climate legislation study—which focuses on climate legislation enacted in 33 countries. The study sets out the progress that each country is making on enacting its own legislation and regulation, and that builds trust into the whole system. Often countries ask, “Why should we act to the detriment of our own industry by enacting climate legislation? It will put us at a disadvantage to everyone else.” But actually, countries are not acting alone. Countries throughout the world are taking positive steps to enact legislation on climate because they perceive the problem. Such a study is perhaps the best way to show the sceptics that their country is not alone, to build trust and enable the negotiations to proceed in the way alluded to by Christiana Figueres.

Finally, since the Bali conference, REDD—reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation—and REDD+ have been one of the most important ways of advancing our aspirations for reducing emissions into the atmosphere. Emissions from deforestation and forest degradation amount to about 17% to 20% of emissions produced each year. I pay tribute to legislators in Brazil for the work that they have recently concluded on the forest code, and for reducing their own emissions so substantially over the past three years. I pay particular tribute to legislators in Mexico, who passed important REDD+ legislation to enable REDD funding to come through.

We often find that, in countries that are major forested domains, property rights are very difficult to establish because there are different layers and levels of rights, such as customary use rights, that sometimes make it impossible to disentangle who has the right to operate, to log or to use a piece of land in a particular way. By teasing those out and codifying all the issues, REDD+ will be enabled, as part of the international negotiations, to reduce really effectively the emissions from that most important sector.

Colleagues are keen to move on to the second part of our debate, so I will draw my remarks on the UNFCCC to a close. I believe that the process is worth while, but I recognise that it is not simply the international negotiations process, in which thousands of people come together every year, that will resolve the matter; it is by detailed work at national level, open to scrutiny by national Parliaments and enacted through national legislation, that we shall build the trust in the international community that will enable the executives, through the UNFCCC, to arrive at a negotiated agreement, we hope, in 2015.



[Mr Clive Betts in the Chair]

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I, too, will try to be brief, because I know that an important debate on China and the low-carbon economy will follow. That debate may shed light on some of our interesting diversions in this debate.

Fundamentally, we have been invited this afternoon to justify why the COP process is important. There are those who say that it is all a complete waste of time—we will burn all the fossil fuel that we can get our hands on—and ask why we are concerning ourselves with the process. Most simply, the Earth is very good at storing stuff and does not need over million of years to balance how it works as a planet. Humans, with the great gift of consciousness, are also very good at finding all that stuff, digging it up and burning it within a few hundred years, compared with the millions of years that the Earth has taken to store and balance it in the first place. I assume that the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) also agrees with this, but if, over the next 100 years or so, clever humans find and burn all the fossil fuel, the outlook for the world would be very poor indeed.

The world simply cannot do that over the next 100 or 150 years. That seems to me to be a fairly self-evident fact, assuming that people agree that there is some relation between what we do—burning fossil fuels in particular, and human activity in general—and the state of the world’s atmosphere and the extent to which the Earth will warm up as result. Someone who thinks that there is no connection whatever would presumably not be concerned about finding all the fossil fuel in the world and burning it all. Someone who thinks that there is a connection, and an urgent one, would presumably wish to do something about it fairly urgently. Since climate change and, in particular, the results of the burning of fossil fuels know no boundaries, the only way that we can do something about the situation over the medium term is through interaction and discussion between states throughout the world about achieving an outcome that is not as disastrous as it would be if every country went its own way individually.

That seems to be the basic point about the COP process, and although I shall come to a caveat in a moment, that cannot be replicated by people doing what they feel like individually in different countries around the world, partly for the reasons that have been rehearsed this afternoon: people want to go their own way in how to develop their economies. Realising the extent to which that is not an option for any of us over the next 100 years or so is part of the process of recognition that international agreements are important. Indeed, under certain circumstances some consequences have been turned back by international agreements. The Montreal protocol and the action on chlorofluorocarbons was a global agreement to the disadvantage of certain places resulting in a substantial change; what would otherwise have been a difficult outcome for at least parts of our climate has apparently been substantially mitigated and possibly reversed. The COP process is important in that respect.

For the record, one of the immediate consequences of deciding to go off in a different direction can be seen in the 2013 Budget: the carbon floor price is a unilateral tax introduced in the UK, the operation of which does not directly save a single tonne of carbon. It was supposed to be introduced on the basis of a £1 rider on the EU ETS—an inter-country co-operation on carbon cap and trade—but that turned into a £4.94 rider on the ETS when it comes in this year. From next year, it will be £9.55 on top and, in 2015, £18.08 on top, compared with what would have been £7.28 and £9.86, respectively, under the original proposals. That is not mission creep but mission gallop, and often in an entirely different direction. The result is an £18 differential between a power station introducing energy to the UK from the Netherlands and a power station producing energy within the UK. A power station developer might now think, “I will go and put one up in The Hague now because, for my power station developments, that will save me £18 per tonne of CO₂ over the next few years.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) outlined, the free money—not for new nuclear, but for existing nuclear—turns out to be not only for all the nuclear power stations in place, but for the two extensions agreed last year and this year. Calculations based on what the carbon floor price would have been when it was first introduced make that £44 billion over the life of the extensions for the four power stations; the new figures are about 30% more. Frankly, I will be surprised if EDF does not go ahead with a new power station on the back of that free money, although I know those are two slightly different things. My point is about the distorting effects of a one-country go at such a scheme, even if that was the intention, rather than its being a dash for money by the Treasury. That illustrates, as other things might not immediately, how important it is to go ahead with international negotiations and to get collective action. Everyone would then be in the same place and on the same level playing field.

[David Mowat]

The hon. Gentleman makes the argument for the money being used as a cross-subsidy. Unfortunately, EDF will not look at it that way; I would be happier if it did, because that would mean getting Hinkley Point, but I am concerned that that will not happen.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. EDF will probably use the money to shore up its dodgy international finances, rather than to develop new nuclear power stations. Nevertheless, the effect is there: a substantial subsidy, merely for continuing to do what it did, as a result of an instrument in one country alone. That is my point, not how EDF will use the money.

That is why the international COP process and, contributing to it, joint targets backed up by individual country targets are important. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North mentioned the extent to which, almost under the radar internationally, countries are beginning to take the sort of action that we in this country have already taken with climate change legislation. One of the ongoing processes recorded in the Select Committee report is that countries, even those that might be advantaged by global warming, are undertaking their own climate change legislation.

It is vital the UK does everything that it can over the next few years to support countries to develop their own climate change targets and to join us in ours, so that progress towards a level playing field can be considerably advantaged as the negotiations take place. One thing that we should resolve today not to do is to indulge in any tinkering with our climate change targets, as we try to move towards international agreement on other people’s climate change targets, given that that would send a very bad signal indeed to other countries, some of which are beginning to take their climate change legislation directly from what we have done in the UK.

That is a call not for action, but for us to defend what this country has done. Our actions have not just made a contribution to what will subsequently be the international level playing field, but are a beacon that shows how these things can be done. Our duty now is not just to say, “We’ve done it, so you should do it, too,” but to stick with what we have done and to ensure that the process that we are working to is not revised away, wished away, downgraded or put in a cupboard by others, while some take what we consider a more appropriate direction on international agreements.

Of course, there is a whole range of other issues regarding COP 18 and beyond, but what I have just described is among the important emerging issues; indeed, it featured substantially at the Doha discussions. It may be a mark of our contribution over future years that the steps that I have described are among those that we take to move discussions forward in a way that produces international agreements, which are vital to any hope of ensuring that our planet lasts in a fit state for the next few hundred years. Of course, it will last, but perhaps not in a fit state for us, although it might be in a fit state for somebody else. Whether our planet will be in a fit state for us over the next few hundred years, however, will be very much determined by whether people from around the world gather to discuss these issues. The issue is whether we make the planet fit for purpose, fit for us and fit for the future; that is what we have to concentrate our minds on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luciana Berger]

During the Committee’s special evidence sitting following the conference, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West commented:

“If it was a road map, the car is still on the road”.

There was not the forward movement we hoped for. Only one country—the Dominican Republic—signed up to new carbon emission targets. Although I welcome the fact that four Gulf states made a commitment to submit reduction plans, that has yet to happen. The most important thing was that the conference agreed an extension of the Kyoto protocol and re-established a timetable for agreeing a global deal in 2015.

As to the substance of the report, Labour Front Benchers support many of the Committee’s recommendations. We have supported and will continue to support the Government’s efforts to secure a global, legally binding framework to cut CO₂ emissions. We agree with the Committee and the Government that the UNFCCC is the forum that offers the best opportunity for securing such an agreement, and that there is a need for a single transparent accounting regime, but this is the point at which I want to hold the Government to account.

We also support an EU target of a 30% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. Anyone reading the Government’s response to the Committee’s report would be led to believe that the Conservative party supports that as well, yet proposals to introduce a 30% target have come before the EU Parliament twice in the past two years, and have twice been defeated because Conservative MEPs voted against them. I hope that the Minister might share with us his thoughts on why they did that, or, more to the point, why the Prime Minster did not do anything to stop them.

Will the Minister also tell us why this week 21 Conservative MEPs voted against attempts to rescue the EU ETS by back-loading 900 million carbon allowances that were due to be auctioned later this year? That was despite the fact that the Secretary of State told the Select Committee:

“We have the proposal for back-loading on the table. We do not think it is ambitious enough. We think we want to see both back-loading and cancelling, because that could make a significant difference to increasing EU ambition almost in one leap.”

Given that the Secretary of State clearly stated that the Government support back-loading, why did Conservative MEPs actively scupper the proposals?

The UK is responsible for 2% of the world’s carbon emissions. We have a responsibility to reduce them, for all manner of reasons, but on our own we cannot solve the problem of global climate change. Part of the leadership role that we can play in international climate negotiations will be as part of an EU bloc, so why are the Minister and the Prime Minister allowing the UK’s credibility to be undermined by Conservative MEPs? I know from previous exchanges on such matters that the Minister has a habit of dismissing anything that he does not want to hear, or that highlights the shortcomings of the Government, as partisan rhetoric, but it is not partisan to point out that the view of the UK as a climate change leader on the international stage is diminishing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West said during the Committee’s hearing following Doha, the message that he heard from our European partners was that they felt the UK was backing off from the leadership it had shown in the past.

In an ideal world, between now and 2015 the Prime Minster would go around Europe and the rest of the world championing Britain’s low-carbon progress, but we know that he cannot do that. He can try, and I hope he will. He can go to China, the United States and our European neighbours, and I am sure they will listen politely to his spiel about how the Government are the greenest Government ever, and nod as he tells them how personally committed he is to combating climate change. I am equally sure that they will then disregard what he says, because they read newspapers, too, and they know the Government’s record as well as we do. They know that under this Government investment in renewable energy has halved, and that the Prime Minister barely talks about climate change any more—he has not yet attended an international conference on the matter, and cannot get his own MEPs to support an increase in carbon reduction, let alone ask them to do more. No matter what the Prime Minster says, he cannot change the reality.

Things do not have to stay that way, however. The Government should act now to improve their record and give the UK a stronger negotiating position in the run-up to 2015.

[David Mowat]

From the tone of the hon. Lady’s remarks it would seem as if the UK were among the higher producers of carbon in the EU, whereas, according to EU figures, we produce 8.8 tonnes per capita. That is among the lowest in the EU and 30% lower than countries such as Germany, Holland, Ireland and Poland. I find her remarks odd in that context.

[Luciana Berger]

I am not sure how that point relates to mine about our responsibility to continue in our leadership role on the international stage—a role for which, in the past, we have been held in high esteem and taken seriously—and about remarks recorded in the report that show a diminishing in our standing, and therefore our effectiveness, on that international stage. As I said, 2% of global emissions come from the UK. We have a responsibility, domestically, to reduce them, but we cannot solve the problem alone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luciana Berger]

We were the first country to introduce a climate change Act, but other countries, such as Mexico, have followed suit, and many others are considering how to reduce their carbon emissions. I agree with the Chancellor’s comments back in 2007, when he said that investment in low carbon could go hand in hand with growth and support our economy. We have seen global trade in low carbon surpass growth in all other fields. Without domestic investment in low carbon in the UK, our national growth figures last year would have been much worse. I believe the two go hand in hand.

What should the Government do? First, they should back the cross-party amendment proposed by the Chair of the Select Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North, which would put an explicit target for decarbonising the UK energy sector by 2030 in the Energy Bill. That would give businesses the confidence and certainty they are crying out for to invest in low-carbon and renewable generation, and would signal to other nations that we were serious about meeting our climate change targets and moving to a low-carbon economy.

Secondly, the Prime Minister should get a grip on his MEPs and force them to vote in the European Parliament in accordance with the UK Government’s position. That is the only way to regain our lost credibility in the eyes of our EU neighbours. Thirdly, the UK should renew its role as an international political leader on climate change.

[David Mowat]

The hon. Lady refers to lack of credibility with our EU neighbours. I could accept that if our carbon emissions were higher than those of our EU neighbours, but, with the exception of France, they are significantly lower. Surely actions drive the issue, not words.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I referred first and foremost to the actions of Conservative MEPs in the European Parliament who have twice contradicted and been in conflict with British Government policy. There has been a reduction in our emissions, but we must ensure that we meet our ambitious emissions reduction target in the long term. We have made significant progress in the short term, but we must make significant investment in the short and medium term to ensure that we meet the long-term targets.

This month, Lord Stern, author of the world famous Stern report, said that the only thing missing in the efforts to tackle climate change “is the political will”. There are signs that that is beginning to change. In his second inaugural address, President Obama reaffirmed his commitment to tackling climate change. Even emerging economies such as China—we will discuss this in more detail in our next debate—are making progress.

We must seize this opportunity for our planet and for the jobs and growth that it will create. It is time for Minsters, especially the Prime Minister, to stop talking about showing leadership and get on and do it. I hope the Minister will take note of my suggestions, and I look forward to hearing his explanation of the vote by his party’s MEPs this week.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Barker]

The hon. Gentleman makes that point far better than I did. I am not in favour of subsidies. They are a short-term means to an end, and they certainly should not be in place if there is no prospect of getting rid of them in the longer term. I have tried hon. Members too much with my tirade on that.

Let me turn to the COP negotiations, particularly the UK Government’s position and our priorities in respect of getting a global deal. Before I do so, I remind the House what we agreed in Doha. The 17th COP in Durban in 2011 was another step in the development of the UNFCCC, as was the Cancun conference the year before, but it was also a significant turning point. At that point, all the countries committed to agree a new global deal by 2015 and increase efforts to reduce emissions. Last year’s conference in Doha was the next step to make progress on both those issues.

The annual conferences should be seen not as major breakthrough points, but as steps forward. Even the annual conference in 2015, where we hope to agree the new global deal, will also include ongoing implementation decisions and perhaps further steps in the period to 2020 on how the new global deal will be implemented in detail. In that regard, our objectives at the Doha conference last year were largely achieved. We agreed a high-level work plan to negotiate the new agreement by 2015, and we rationalised the negotiation process to give space to deliver the work plan and take forward work to increase the emissions reduction effort in the meantime. Hon. Members might think that that sounds like process. It is. To negotiate a new global deal with 194 countries in three years, the process must be right. It is a challenge, but it is what we are doing.

We also made progress in further building and implementing the key elements of the UNFCCC regime, including on climate finance. I must say to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree that, far from trailing, the UK has a strong reputation on climate change, and our international reputation as a leader is rising, particularly in relation to private sector finance and investment, adaptation, technology and the rules set to measure, report and verify countries’ emissions. Getting the process right and continually building elements are vital to tackling a global problem of the scale of climate change, which is why each annual conference is a step forward.

[David Mowat]

I am listening carefully to what the Minister is saying about the COP process. One of my thoughts is that some of the time would be better spent considering abatement, as well as deals. We talked earlier about the fact that many millions of square kilometres in Russia might become usable as a result of climate change. Should we not be thinking about that globally as well?

[Gregory Barker]

We absolutely need to draw on such issues. One thing that we know for certain is that there is no silver bullet for the agenda, and we cannot afford to ignore any strand. This week, I had hoped to be in Delhi for the clean energy ministerial, which considers a range of technological solutions outside the constraints of the UNFCCC negotiating process and, to my mind, is becoming an increasingly important forum for driving the technological innovation that we need and giving the agenda much more positive spin—forgive the word. People can see tangible things to invest in that are themselves a natural good. Abatement falls into the category of things that we need to do more to consider. I do not suggest for a moment that the UNFCCC is a universal panacea, nor that risks do not attach to it, but it is our best hope of getting an overarching international framework, which in turn is our best hope of driving progress at a global level.

I said that the UK is an internationally renowned leader in climate finance. In Doha, the UK demonstrated that it was on track to deliver our £1.5 billion fast-start pledge by the end of 2012, and as the hon. Member for Brent North said, we have delivered it. We also set out for our developing country partners what the UK climate finance contribution will be in the period to 2015.

However, the key thing—we are good at this globally, and we have a strong representation—is to make the point that public finance can only go so far. We cannot push British taxpayers—or, come to that, any other taxpayers—to keep increasing the amount of public contribution. Public finance, like subsidy, is there to catalyse private sector interventions. We are seeing increasing private sector interest in scaling up investments, so I think there is a realistic possibility of meeting the pledge made at Copenhagen to mobilise the $100 billion a year from developed economies into climate measures in developing economies, not principally from the public sector or the pockets of taxpayers in developed economies, but from mobilised private sector sources that see the opportunity to make returns on attractive clean energy and climate mitigation solutions. On that point, I bring my speech to a close and thank the Committee for its report.