Joan
Ruddock: I am not absolutely clear how much time we have
left. If it is restricted, I will do what I can to answer the huge
number of questions that I
have. The
hon. Member for Wealden began with points about delivery and external
review. He asked what discussions we have had with developing countries
and whether we are closer to understanding what needs to be done. As I
said in my first remarks, the negotiations are extremely complex, as he
will appreciate. Our officials are travelling continuously—due
to the carbon emissions involved, I am sorry to say that—to
engage with all the key countries that can possibly bring about the
deal.
6.4
pm Sitting
suspended for a Division in the
House.
6.19
pm
On
resuming—
Joan
Ruddock: I was describing the fact that our officials are
travelling continuously and we are meeting with all the key countries,
in an attempt to work through some of the many dilemmas that have been
presented by hon. Members, including my hon. Friends, this
afternoon.
There is
closer and better understanding of what needs to be achieved. As the
hon. Member for Wealden said, there is indeed a debate about whether
the issue is total emissions or per capita emissions. He cited the
example of China. China now has the greatest volume of emissions, but
in terms of emissions per head it is of course way behind many western
developed countries. Having said that, however, China is far ahead of
countries such as India and other much poorer countries.
So it is our
view that an effort must be made by developing countries and
particularly the emerging economies based on total emissions. At the
end of the day, it is the total emissions that are having a major
impact on our climate and we have to tackle total emissions, while
appreciating differentiated needs and responsibilities and also the
fact that countries such as China have to bring so many people out of
poverty and must not be denied their opportunity to do that. We very
much support that process.
So the debate
continues. However, we are very clear that there must be national
inventories and that they must be accepted as accurate. Also, in this
EU paper—and this is the UK position—it is stated that we
need to see a deviation from business as usual in those countries,
based on, for the whole group, a deviation of about 15 to 30
per cent. from business as usual, to be matched by actual reductions of
25 to 40 per cent. from 1990 levels by the developed
countries.
The hon.
Member for Wealden spoke about the recession, as did other hon.
Members, and he suggested that some European countries were slipping
from the position that they had held. I think that there is no doubt
that countries were very concerned and that there was a very sharp
debate about how countries would raise the finance and whether or not
they should move backwards from that previous position. We were very
firm, as I said earlier today. Of course, the agreements that were
struck remained robust, despite all the discussion.
We have the
commitment to the 20 per cent. reduction in emissions, which is
unilateral to the EU, and the commitment to go to 30 per cent.
reductions if there is a global deal. So the EU member states are
committed to those objectives and, whatever the discussions, that is
the position that we have arrived
at. The
hon. Gentleman charged this Government with not meeting all of our
targets. I say to him in response that I can recall, because I was
shadow Minister at the time, putting that 20 per cent. reduction by
2010 in our document called “The Road to the Manifesto”.
When we did that, I can tell him that virtually nobody in this place
had the slightest interest in reducing emissions or knew anything about
climate change. Consequently, we were in completely uncharted
territory.
Martin
Horwood: Will the Minister give
way?
Joan
Ruddock: Maybe the hon. Gentleman was an exception to
that. However, I say to him that there were very few exceptions at that
time.
Martin
Horwood: I am sure that the Minister is not including the
Liberal Democrats, or even our predecessors in the Liberal party, in
that assessment, since we have been warning about “threats to
the world’s temperature-balancing mechanism”—I
think that that was the phrase that was used—since the
1970s.
Joan
Ruddock: Well, there were hon. Members in this House
during the period that I am talking about—the hon. Gentleman
himself was not, of course, in the House then—who were
interested. [Laughter.] Maybe he was at school
then. However, I can tell the hon. Member for Wealden, who raised the
question, that when we made that commitment we were in entirely
uncharted territory. If it was not for some of us leading the thinking
at that time, we would never have had an ambitious target. Frankly,
therefore, the fact that we are getting to 16 per cent. by 2010 is not
too bad at all. I wish that that figure was higher, but none the less
that target of 20 per cent. and having that target before us has driven
our
effort. As
the hon. Member for Wealden says, we need to do more and, as a
Government, we constantly acknowledge that we need to do more. We have
made all sorts of changes, by scrutinising Government Departments and
the Government estate and by involving the Sustainable Development
Commission. He would not know what was going on in Government if it
were not for the fact that we have made this a transparent issue and
are demonstrating that we have done some things although, of course, we
have much more to do. We are committed to doing it. If we were not, we
would not have introduced the Climate Change
Act. The
hon. Member for Wealden said that there was a need for a critical path
analysis. Again, I can only repeat what I said earlier. We are talking
about a process and pathways for countries that do not have caps.
Because we have a cap, we have to go down a path. He gave the example
of nuclear, which for all sorts of reasons has had to have this kind of
critical pathway, not least to encourage private industry. However, I
can tell him that
in the summer this year—I may have said this already—we
will publish our programmes and policies for meeting the first of the
carbon budgets, and show the way into the future. That is perhaps not
what he would call a critical path, but we will be developing the means
of getting to our targets as we proceed, and some of them may amount to
critical
paths. The
hon. Gentleman said that there was not sufficient reference in the
document to new technologies, and that we needed a clearer global
vision. The EU has said clearly that 20 per cent. of all energy is to
come from renewable sources by 2020. I do not think that a group of
countries could be much clearer on how valuable they believe new
technology and renewable energy are to member states and the world than
by making that kind of
commitment. As
the hon. Gentleman knows, because we are rather far behind on
renewables, we have to make what amounts to an eightfold increase in
the amount of energy coming from renewable sources between now and
2020. That is a tremendous commitment. People in this country will see
enormous change, not least because they will be able to use
microgeneration in their own
homes. I
do not think that there is a need for more information in the document.
There are other meetings and forums where intense debate is taking
place about how to increase renewables, how to do more research and how
to share technologies with developing and emerging
economies. The
hon. Member for Wealden discussed robust carbon markets. We very much
agree with his sentiments. We want to do everything that we possibly
can to ensure that such markets are robust, that we reduce permits and
that we go to full auctioning. Those concerns are shared across the
House. We
would not support putting a floor on the carbon price. It would require
the market having to guess what the next Government intervention might
be. We believe that the market needs to find its own place. The carbon
price has gone down, of course, but it has begun to come up again, and
we are content with
that. The
hon. Gentleman spoke about the recession. I mentioned it earlier, but I
did not respond specifically on a point that has been clarified for me.
The Commission took account of the recession in the calculations.
Apparently the €175 billion that was quoted falls to €152
billion as a consequence of the recession. It has just been pointed out
to me that that has already been taken account of in the background
papers. Because of the very long term and the ability of countries to
absorb the funds, we think that the adaptation funding will not require
adjustment for what we trust will be a relatively short-term
recession. The
hon. Gentleman suggested that there should be an independent analysis
of the communication and its robustness. All I can say is that the
debate is moving quickly, and more analysis will come from many
sources. We will obviously depend on such work when and as it is
done. My
hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell asked a number of
questions. He asked what the adaptation strategy was based on. He
believes that the science has moved on and that there are difficulties
with holding to the 2° increase. We are all sympathetic to his
case, but we cannot move the goalposts constantly because, as I
have said, that would make our negotiations impossible. We need a
baseline. Some other countries are not prepared to accept that we must
keep the current baseline in our sights. It would not be helpful to
international negotiations if we changed our
position. As
I said earlier, because of the need for adaptation funds, the amounts
that have to be paid and the ability of developing countries to make
use of them, we will not need to adjust our thinking on finance flows
in the short term. However, my hon. Friend is right that if we cannot
keep to 2° or lower, the cost of adaptation will escalate and
everything will become much more difficult. That brings us back to the
point that we have made so often; we must get this global deal because
we cannot afford to exceed the 2°
limit. My
hon. Friend understandably expressed great frustration with the failure
of the International Maritime Organisation and the International Civil
Aviation Organisation to come up with a formula to deal with targets
for the shipping and aviation sectors. We agree that that is
frustrating. We continue to work with those bodies, but agree that the
United Nations framework convention on climate change is the right
forum and that it might have to set the targets and take the work away
from
them. As
always when I hear him speak, my hon. Friend referred to his favourite
subject of contraction and convergence. He knows that many people are
sympathetic to the idea that fairness should come out of a contraction
and convergence process. In the Council conclusions of 2008, the EU
suggested that it should be possible to move to 2 tonnes per capita by
2050. However, I am sorry to tell him that that model is not acceptable
to other countries. I am sure that he knows that. I say to him again
that when we are trying to get a global agreement, we must work with
the grain and go where we think the compromise can be struck. Although
his suggestion might be the ideal method and the world might come round
to it, it cannot be built in at this point in negotiations on getting
to 2020, and certainly not by the
EU. The
hon. Member for Cheltenham spoke about carbon intensity targets. Our
options are open in respect of the type of action major economies could
take on that. We believe that carbon intensity could be a useful metric
for developing countries because they have much more variable growth.
He also mentioned international institutions, which have a fundamental
role and are already doing a lot. We are putting pressure on them to do
more. We need the global agreement to get international institutions to
do more and to do it more
effectively. The
hon. Member for Cheltenham spoke about many issues relating to the
science and the possibility that we might exceed 2°. We cannot
afford to take a different attitude and decide that everything has to
be changed because, as in the case under discussion, one scientist,
rather than the whole of the international panel, says that things are
even worse than suggested. As I have repeatedly said, we must work from
the available baselines. We are working from the fourth assessment
panel and the science that has given us the framework in which
international negotiations should take place. The European document
under consideration contains a suggestion for the need for a review in
2016, which is a short time away. If we manage to get a global
agreement and see that the science is indeed so much worse and that we
need to make much greater adjustments than we have already agreed, that
opportunity will be available. It is important to get a deal now, even
if it requires amendment
later. Martin
Horwood: The Minister is right about the importance of the
global deal; I am sure that we are all agreed on that. I am alarmed,
however, by her belief that only one or two scientists think that some
of the climate change indicators are worse than the IPCC scenario. I
commend to her the Public Interest Research Centre report, which
catalogues a whole series of data including some showing that the
tropical climate zone expanding ecosystem is proving more vulnerable to
carbon sinks and temperature rise. A whole range of science is now
showing trends that are worse than the IPCC’s worst-case
scenario, so the situation does not just involve a few isolated
scientists; it is a very general picture that is linked to the time lag
that is built into the IPCC’s whole
process.
Joan
Ruddock: I accept entirely what the hon. Gentleman says,
and of course the situation involves more than one scientist. He quoted
one scientist, but I apologise for representing him in the way that I
did. However, we need to work with the international panel’s
framework, because it is the basis on which everything is being
negotiated. As I have repeatedly said, it is extremely difficult to get
people to agree and to accept even that framework. If we get a global
agreement, we will have made such progress that, if we are told that
the science is so much worse, it could be brought into play and reviews
could take place. I think that we are agreed, however, that we need a
starting point, and that starting point will be based on the
framework. I
think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell who
said that recession was an opportunity, and questioned whether we were
making enough of it. We know that if there were fewer cars and people
drove less, they would produce fewer emissions, which is a good thing
that nobody could disagree with, but we also know that most of us, most
of the time, will want to have a car and will want to drive it. On the
scrappage scheme, if an individual purchases a car that has no
emissions and is more fuel-efficient, there is an environmental gain,
albeit a very small one. Much of the Government’s package and
future plans are based on moving to better emission standards and to
greener
technology. I
have probably dealt with most of the questions, but there were
references to specific countries, so I will touch on those. The hon.
Member for Cheltenham mentioned the US, Australia and Canada. There is
no doubt that, from the point at which the new President of the United
States starts this year, it will be extremely difficult for that
country to come forward with a really ambitious programme. What we have
heard and what we believe is critical is his commitment that the United
States will accept that an 80 per cent. reduction by 2050 is necessary,
and that he will lead in the discussions at Copenhagen. Although we do
not know what the US will offer, the new mood in all the meetings in
which the US has been involved is so positive that we believe that it
will make a real contribution, which would have been impossible before
the new presidency. To that extent, we are optimistic.
Although the
Australians have postponed introducing their emissions trading for a
year, they have come forward with a much better offer on emissions
reduction, so we feel positive about
Australia. It
is true, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham says, that Canada seems to
be on a path of increasing emissions. We have told all developed
countries that science requires us to make cuts within the range of 25
to 45 per cent. —that is in the Commission’s
document—and that we expect all developed countries to come
forward with comparable offers. They must have an incentive, so we will
not suggest to the EU that we should go to 30 per cent. or even 40 per
cent. now for 2020. We want to create the incentive of only 20 per
cent. now in the EU, but that a global deal would automatically trigger
30 per cent. That is an important bargaining chip, and we do
not intend to give it
away.
| 
