Joan
Ruddock: The estimate quoted in the document is
€175 billion a year by 2020. That would include the mitigation
efforts required in developing countries. The figure for adaptation is
in the order of €23 billion to €54 billion by
2030. In another document, the gap in forestry funding has been
estimated at between £9 billion and £14 billion. There
are many different figures. We all know that we are talking about very
large sums. I do not want to split hairs with Friends of the Earth or
others.
The EU has
said that member states must take their fair share of the burden. Of
course, how that fair share should be calculated will be part of the
negotiations. There are many proposals for financing. We could go into
those further, but I must answer briefly. We do not know how much the
EU must contribute, but we can take a principled position about how
burden sharing should be worked out. We do not have an agreed sum and
we have not worked out how different member states will make their
contributions.
Martin
Horwood: I am grateful for the Minister’s reply,
which included some comprehensive and detailed figures. Some of those
were on a time scale going up to 2020. Does she accept that unless
financing mechanisms are in place quickly, the sheer urgency of the
need to make changes could be lost? That would count against the view
of Lord Stern, James Hansen and others that we must start to reduce the
carbon intensity of global economies earlier rather than later. If the
financing targets go up to 2020, is there not a risk that the finance
will not be put in place in the near future and that the opportunity
will be tragically
lost?
Joan
Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but
finance is available now. I could provide a long list of the funding
that the UK has offered and is available through climate investment
funds. We made money available to get the adaptation fund up and
running, which we did at Poznan, and £25 million went into it to
make it active, which we expect will happen next month. Finance flows
are available, and we must look forward for two reasons. First, the
world community must produce more and more money in finance flows and,
secondly, we must increase countries’ capacity to absorb those
flows. That is why we must consider a longer time scale, as well as
gathering money now. Money is being gathered now, and some of the
available funds have not been
spent. Ms
Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab): The Minister
rightly refers to negotiations, and the papers before us state that the
position is neither the EU’s nor the Government’s final
one, but we are talking about serious amounts of money. Will the
Minister, between finalisation of the negotiations and the UK
committing itself to a fair share and a fair contribution, return to
the Floor of the House and provide an opportunity to discuss the matter
further in
detail?
Joan
Ruddock: I hesitate to give a commitment to return to the
Floor of the House, because it is never in a Minister’s gift to
decide when a debate will be held. However, my colleagues in the new
Department of Energy and Climate Change and I are very keen that the
House should be apprised of how serious the matter is, and how much of
a contribution the country is making to finding a global deal, We are
accountable in every way and willing to avail ourselves and the House
of any debate on the subject. I sometimes wish that we had more such
debates, because the matter is so
important. Mr.
Cash: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the
correspondence and initiatives from my right hon. Friend the Member for
Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) on the cost. Will the
Minister let me know her reply to his
points—I am sure that she has the figures somewhere—and if
she cannot do so immediately, will she write to me and my right hon.
Friend with a clear explanation of whether and to what extent she
accepts his
figures?
Joan
Ruddock: I have the figures somewhere, but it is difficult
to find them immediately. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
has replied comprehensively to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and
Harpenden, who made two points. He believes that the cost of acting on
climate change is huge, that the benefits are small, and that this is
not an appropriate way forward. He questioned how the calculations were
made. We had to make a new impact assessment following the introduction
of the Climate Change Act 2008, which changes “gases” to
greenhouse gases instead of CO 2, and the target from 60 per
cent. to 80 per cent. He then made the charge that we had conveniently
found that the cost was lower and the rewards were greater. We did a
new calculation that takes account of the fact that everything changes
if there is global agreement. The impact assessment must take account
of the fact that we are all working towards a global agreement, which
would produce far greater rewards for the UK. Although we contribute
only 2 per cent. of emissions, we would none the less benefit from a
global reduction in climate change, as it would prevent the huge and
ever greater expenditure that the UK would otherwise have to endure in
order to adapt. That is the basis for the
discussion. We
then heard that a certain sum of money—I believe it is in the
order of £20,000—would be the cost to individual UK
householders. However, the impact assessment is based on 2050, so
whatever the costs, they will be taken over a long period. They will
also be within the 1 to 2 per cent. of GDP that Lord Stern said would
be the cost of taking appropriate mitigating action now and within that
time frame. That is far less than the costs that would accrue if no
action were taken.
Mr.
Cash: The Minister has said that everything changes;
Anaxagoras referred to that in the Greek expression panta
rei.
In the
context of clean coal technology and of what my right hon. Friend the
Member for Hitchin and Harpenden has said, will the Minister be good
enough to explain exactly how the Government’s commitment to
that technology—she knows that I am personally committed to it
and have been for many years—will improve the domestic financial
arrangements of this country in a way that ensures not only that we get
the kind of changes in climate technology that are needed but that we
secure our supply of coal and deal with the foreign policy implications
of the measures that she has
described?
Joan
Ruddock: If we can make it work, we believe that clean
coal technology will enable us to have an energy mix that gives us
greater energy security. Theoretically, this country could supply
enough energy without coal; we could, but we will not do so, because
the costs would be colossal. Having an energy mix is appropriate, and
the hon. Gentleman knows that we have announced what that mix will be.
Coal will continue to play a significant part in that mix. However, if
we are to reduce our emissions by 80 per cent. by 2050—we are
committed to do so by law—we will have to mitigate the emissions
from coal, as it is the dirtiest of the fuels that could be
employed.
Investing in
carbon capture and storage, with the full demonstration project that we
have announced, will not only secure the energy supply and the
mitigation but make a huge contribution to world security. Even if we
were to give up coal, China and India would still be utterly
dependent—as they must be, in order to bring their people out of
poverty. In that respect, whatever we can do and are doing to engage
positively with China will have worldwide
benefits.
Martin
Horwood: The Minister may remember a conversation that we
had in the Environmental Audit Committee on 3 March. I remind her that
we were discussing the reducing emissions from deforestation in
developing countries mechanism, and whether we can prevent the perverse
result that more carbon-intensive crops or other means of land use
might, through pure market mechanisms, result in virgin rain forest
being cut down and replaced with something
else. I
suggested, as did some NGOs and other organisations, that the
negotiations on REDD could include a specific link to matters such as
biodiversity and human rights, and to declarations such as the UN
declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples and the International
Labour Organisation convention No. 169. She rightly said that it was
impossible to predict whether such negotiations would take
place—they are obviously negotiations among sovereign
Governments—but she was not quite ready to say whether our
Government will press for that sort of link. Will she confirm that
now?
Joan
Ruddock: We have clearly said that the needs of indigenous
people must be recognised in any agreement on REDD.
I may have
said to the hon. Gentleman in the other debate that the convention on
biodiversity protects the interests of biodiversity in forestry. Trying
to put in every factor makes it more difficult to achieve, because
these negotiations are so complex. We have to view the matter through
the prism of carbon and carbon emissions as a priority for the
negotiations, but that does not mean that these issues are not being
addressed: it is a question of the extent to which they can or should
be addressed in those negotiations. There is a limit on what he is
proposing.
Martin
Horwood: I should have declared a non-financial interest
at the outset, because I am also chair of the all-party group on tribal
peoples. In that capacity, as well as this one, I welcome what the
Minister has said: that was an explicit statement of intent by the
British Government, and it was clearer than the one she made on the
previous occasion. However, on biodiversity, which is only one more
subject, after all, she seemed ambivalent about whether we will press
for linkage between biodiversity and the REDD mechanism. Surely, given
that the potential crisis in biodiversity is as serious in some ways as
climate change, we should be explicitly pressing for that linkage,
should we
not?
Joan
Ruddock: Work is going on in various other forums to make
links. At the biodiversity conference, a working group was specifically
making the links between biodiversity and climate change. We know that
the
conservation and preservation of forests aids biodiversity and that the
destruction of forest reduces biodiversity; to that extent, it is a
given. I think that I am right in saying that we have to be clear that
this is a negotiation about carbon mitigation and adaptation, although
I stand to be corrected if any officials present wish to pass me a
note. Our wanting to reduce by half the destruction of forests by 2020
and halt their destruction by 2030 will assist biodiversity in a major
way. Nothing that we might do, in terms of the negotiations, will take
that away; it is a
given. Colin
Challen: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend the
Minister that the EU and the UK have shown true leadership in trying to
get to grips with this challenge. However, I wonder whether she is
familiar with the National Audit Office report for the Environmental
Audit Committee on the emissions trading scheme, which showed that, by
2020, the ambition against the baseline was to reduce carbon emissions
by 21 per cent. through the ETS, but that if the maximum use of project
credits is employed, that figure drops to just 7 per cent.
Does she accept the NAO’s analysis and does she think that, if
it goes down to 7 per cent., that is not really showing the leadership
that many of us would like to
see?
Joan
Ruddock: I confess that I am not entirely familiar with
that. I am familiar with the debate, but not with the figures.
Therefore, I cannot comment on whether I agree or do not agree with the
figures that have been provided. Let me say something about how we in
the UK are approaching the matter. [Interruption.] I am getting
some assistance: actually, that is not assistance! We accept that that
trading mechanism needs to drive down emissions substantially. We
pressed hard for a much tighter cap. We believe that that is in place
and can achieve many of our objectives. Within the UK, outside the
traded sector, we have of course said that in our first carbon budget
there would be no use of credits whatever. We want to see a lot of
domestic action in the non-traded sector, but within the traded sector
an EU agreement has been struck, and we clearly cannot change its
dynamics, except where we press very hard for a tighter cap and for
some improvements in the operations.
We have had
that debate with regard to credits many times, particularly with the
NGO movement, and that seems to suggest that credits are bad per se,
whereas we believe that there is a need for international finance flows
to developing countries and that credits can be part of that. They must
not be an excuse for not taking domestic action. My hon. Friend asked
whether the balance is right, and I will inquire about that. I assume
that we have not responded to the EAC report, but if we have, he will
know the answer. If not, I am sure that it is
coming.
Colin
Challen: The answer will be coming shortly; it has not yet
been published. The question about project credits begs a wider
question. For the record, I support carbon trade as part of a suite of
measures to deal with climate change, but we must get the balance
right. If we are talking about using the ETS as the basis for a more
global agreement or linkage with the Americans, which
I imagine is the most probable reason, we must be certain about what we
are actually linking. We talk about cap and trade, but sometimes we
just talk about trading. If we have trading in an open system in which
another country allows itself to continue without a cap, in that sense
we cannot count our credits as anything to do with a reduction, because
that country can still increase its overall emissions even if we are
buying credits from
it.
Joan
Ruddock: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has
said. As we all know, the EU ETS did not have a cap that drove
emissions down, but we will now have that. We will make more progress.
We know very well that that is the only way, and we have suggested to
countries operating trading systems without caps—I will not name
them—that that does not achieve what is necessary. We want to
see a movement from the EU ETS to hopefully join other countries, but
on the basis of cap and trade. Only on that basis would it make sense.
Ultimately, as he will know, we foresee a global cap and trade
arrangement whereby there would be trading on a global scale, but only
with
cap.
Charles
Hendry: The cover note prepared by the European Scrutiny
Committee states that national climate change strategies would have to
set out a credible pathway to limit emissions through actions covering
all key emitting sectors. Is that something the Government are
personally committed to, because one of the criticisms of their policy
in many areas has been the lack of a critical path analysis? They have
done that in relation to nuclear power, perhaps to the
Minister’s chagrin, but we have not seen it in carbon capture
and storage or in renewable technologies. Given the lack of those
critical paths in the United Kingdom, is that something she feels can
be imposed on other
countries?
Joan
Ruddock: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman’s
question on who is imposing what on other countries. Would he clarify
his question?
Charles
Hendry: The cover note states that meeting climate change
strategies will require a credible pathway or a critical path analysis.
The Government have failed to put those critical path analyses in place
in this country but seem to be signing up to saying that other
countries should have them, and that seems to be a bit of a
dilemma.
| 
