PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
COP30 - 25 November 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, I would like to make a statement about the COP30 climate summit.

The climate crisis represents the greatest long-term threat we face as a world, but the transition also represents the greatest economic opportunity of our time. At home, we are driving for clean energy and climate action, because it is right for energy security, lower bills, good jobs and growth for the British people, as well as for protecting future generations. We went to COP because, with the UK representing just 1% of annual global emissions, working with other countries to tackle the climate crisis is the only way to protect our home and way of life, and because there are huge investment and export opportunities for our country by accelerating the transition globally.

More than 190 countries participated in this COP to build on the progress made over more than three decades of global co-operation, which has seen us move from a world heading for 4°C or more of warming to one where national commitments put us on course for around 2.3° to 2.5°; from a world where no major economy had a net zero target to one where 80% of global GDP is covered, thanks in no small part to the leadership of the UK at COP26 in Glasgow; and from a world where a majority of energy investment was in fossil fuels to one where twice as much is invested in clean energy. The energy transition is happening, the world is moving and multilateralism is working. The forces around the world—including here in Britain—who want to deny that the climate crisis exists, or to delay the action we need to address it, are losing. But at the same time, we were conscious in Belém of the further progress that needs to be made. Our Brazilian hosts were determined to make this an “implementation COP”, and the negotiations served as a focal point for action. This was the first COP to be held in the Amazon, and therefore a significant focus was on protecting forests. The UK was proud to work with Brazil to help it develop the pioneering Tropical Forest Forever Facility, and work on this was moved forward at COP.

The UK was also proud to work alongside the Brazilian presidency on the global climate action agenda, which is about building coalitions of Governments, businesses, cities and civil society groups to accelerate action on issues including reducing methane emissions, phasing out coal and driving investment in clean energy. Thousands of British businesses, as well as our researchers, universities, mayors and others, were involved. The agenda is part of the unstoppable transition that is happening in the real economy, including here in Britain, where our net zero sectors are growing three times faster than the economy as a whole, and where £52 billion of private investment has been announced in clean energy since July 2024.

Turning to the negotiations themselves, I want to put on record my thanks to the UK’s brilliant COP negotiating team, led by our chief negotiator Kate Hughes. I saw once again in Belém the huge admiration there is around the world for the talent, expertise and dedication of our civil service, as well as the recognition of British climate leadership, which has built up over many decades under Governments of different political parties—the foundation of our ability to stand up for Britain on the world stage.

Of course, there is a truth that we must acknowledge: these summits are hard and complex. More than 190 countries negotiating how to transform their economies and societies is never going to be easy. We did not get everything we wanted from the talks, and there were times when it appeared that there would be no agreement, but in the end an agreement was reached, and the outcome represented progress on three critical issues.

The first is about redoubling our efforts to keep global warming to 1.5°. Last year, the Prime Minister announced the UK’s target to reduce emissions by at least 81% by 2035, based on the previous Government’s carbon budget. Many other countries have announced commitments over the last 12 months, including China pledging to cut its emissions for the first time, alongside the EU, Brazil and a total of 120 countries, covering three quarters of global emissions.

However, we must do more to close the gap to 1.5°. Recognising the urgency of action, it was agreed in the final COP30 text that all countries had to play a part to keep 1.5° within reach, that this required us to meet net zero as a world by or around the middle of the century, and that all countries should be encouraged to raise their targets. There will now be a forward process into COP31 next year, so we remain focused on the urgency of this issue.

Secondly, ambition on reducing emissions goes hand in hand with finance. This is in our interests, because there is no route to global stability, growth and development without supporting developing countries to take the low-carbon path and to better protect their populations from the impacts of the climate crisis. At COP29 in Baku last year, countries agreed that we needed to mobilise at least $300 billion per year for developing countries by 2035, and to scale up towards $1.3 trillion from all sources. COP30 agreed to target a share of the global resources agreed last year towards a trebling of adaptation finance by 2035, to make sure that developing countries have the resilience they need.

Thirdly, we know that there is no solution to the climate crisis without action on the transition away from fossil fuels. The need for this transition was agreed by all countries at COP28 in Dubai, including by the UK under the last Conservative Government. The Brazilian presidency put forward the idea of agreeing to a road map so that we could grapple with the difficult issues facing fossil fuel-producing countries, as well as the need for a just and fair transition.

At COP30, we saw the emergence of a broad coalition of 83 countries from the global north and global south, backed by more than 140 global businesses and civil society groups that endorsed the idea of a road map. This turned out to be the hardest sticking point in the talks, and it could not be agreed in the final text because some countries objected, yet as a result of the momentum built, the Brazilian presidency announced at the conclusion of the COP that it would launch such a road map on fossil fuels, as well as a road map to halt and reverse global deforestation. These coalitions of the willing are important when we cannot reach universal agreement, as we have seen with the Powering Past Coal Alliance, initiated by Britain and Canada, which is now supported by 65 national Governments.

The COP30 agreement also took important steps forward on building carbon markets, the just transition, technology transfer, and transparency on implementing commitments so that countries are properly held to account. Taken together, this package represents incremental but important progress and extends the arc of the progress we have seen over 30 years of COPs. That was particularly important this year, because the summit was a test of whether countries would continue to work together on the collective threat we face or whether, with the US stepping out of the Paris agreement, there would be a domino effect of others departing. That has not happened. At COP30, more than 190 countries reaffirmed their faith in the Paris agreement, their faith in working together to keep global warming to 1.5°, and their faith in multilateralism.

The message coming out of Belém was clear: whatever the challenges, clean energy and climate action are the foundations on which the global economy is being remade and rebuilt. That is good for Britain because of the economic opportunities that clean energy represents. It is good for Britain because it is the route to energy security and lower bills.

And it is good for Britain because it is the only way we can keep future generations safe from the threat of climate breakdown. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

Let us be clear: when this Secretary of State resumed office, he decided to impose the most punishing climate policies at home, because according to his argument, if we lead, others will follow. That is why we are the only country in the world to be shutting down our domestic energy supply in the North sea, and why he is forcing us into ever higher energy bills. He has taken the most hair-shirt, ideological approach to climate policy, with thousands of jobs lost and high bills for decades. We are not setting an example to the rest of the world; what he has created is a warning.

It is now the renewables advocates at home who are raising the alarm about the folly of the Secretary of State’s plans to shut down the North sea. [Hon. Members: “Who?”] They say, “Who?” Let me name them. Scottish Renewables, Octopus Energy and—they may have heard of this one—the chair of his very own Great British Energy have all said that we have to continue to drill in the North sea, because they know that there is no just transition by pulling the plug as thoughtlessly as the Government are doing. This is student politics, yet thousands of Britons—[Interruption.] Labour Members laugh. I might remind them that it was their Minister who got booed when we went to Aberdeen, because thousands of Britons are paying the price with their jobs.

Secondly, while the Secretary of State has been gone, it has become even clearer that his plans are raising energy bills at home. Martin Lewis and all our country’s biggest energy suppliers have publicly made it clear that the Secretary of State’s costs are now raising bills. The truth is that he promised the public lower bills and more jobs, when in fact his policies are destroying jobs and signing us up to higher bills for decades. That is not what the public were promised.

The real path to lower emissions is cheaper electricity. If we want people to choose electric cars or electric heating, we need to make electricity cheap, and our cheap power plan would cut the cost of electricity for everyone by 20%. We have some of the cleanest but most expensive electricity in the world. Our plan would address that, and even the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), has said that it merits consideration.

Let me return to COP to see what the Secretary of State did achieve. How many countries joined his new Global Clean Power Alliance? We did not hear about that in the statement because the answer is, “Not a single one.”. Perhaps the terrible outcomes that he is achieving at home have put them off. Worst of all, despite this conference cutting down acres of the Amazon rainforest, the Secretary of State chose not to support this conference’s flagship forest fund. Every Conservative Government since 2021 have supported global funds on deforestation, but he made sure that Britain, for the first time in four years, did not contribute. Is this not the height of hypocrisy? When people say they support environmental policy, first and foremost they mean protecting the natural world that we all cherish. Does this not show up his green ideology for what it is— bureaucratic, punitive and ultimately ineffective?

The Secretary of State’s plans are completely counterproductive, so he should answer these fundamental questions. First, what do his plans mean for electricity bills, when everyone from Martin Lewis to Ofgem have made it clear that his policies are raising bills? What assessment has he made of how damaging those higher electricity bills are for electrification? Here is the rub: he is making electricity more expensive, and expecting people to use it for their heating. As a plan, it is simply absurd.

Secondly, how many more emissions will the UK account for if it is increasing its imports of liquefied natural gas, which has four times the emissions of North sea? The Secretary of State is driving away British jobs to import gas with higher emissions, and he should explain to the House what the environmental benefit of that is. Thirdly, how will it help climate change if AI firms that want to use gas power set up shop in some other country rather than Britain? Those data centres will still exist, just not here in Britain, thanks to his policies. Fourthly, what does he say to Martin Lewis, who has made it very clear that the problem pushing up bills is not gas, but his plans?

Here is the problem: from our electricity price to the North sea and AI, the Secretary of State is impoverishing Britain for no benefit to global emissions. This is student politics. We have become a warning, not an example, to the rest of the world. Here is what he should remember: no country is going to be convinced by a moral lecture from this Secretary of State. They are persuaded by prosperity, and his hair-shirt approach is the biggest blocker to British prosperity.

Oh dear, oh dear! I remember a time when the Conservative party was serious about the COP negotiations. The shadow Secretary of State had advance sight of the statement, but she did not ask any questions about it. I have to say that there is a fundamental issue here: do we engage internationally on how we drive forward the clean energy transition, or do we have a series of really pretty useless talking points, which is what she chose to do?

Let me get to the right hon. Lady’s questions, such as they were. She talks about jobs, so let me tell her some of the things that have happened on jobs in the last couple of weeks: 3,000 new jobs with the small modular reactors in north Wales, which is the biggest investment in north Wales in a generation—promised multiple times by the Conservatives, but never delivered—and 600 jobs in Great Yarmouth, Belfast and the north-west, all thanks to our clean power plans, while SSE has announced thousands more jobs as part of its £33 billion investment in the UK.

Let us not forget that all of this would be put at risk by the Conservatives’ plan to rip up the Climate Change Act 2008. Do not take it from me; in the words of Rain Newton-Smith, the director general of the CBI, that would be

“a backwards step in achieving our shared objectives of reaching economic growth, boosting energy security, protecting our environment and making life healthier for future generations.”

It has been roundly condemned by British business, and of course the proof is what we have seen in the last 15 months. The shadow Secretary of State talks about the record, but more than £50 billion of investment in clean energy in Britain has been pledged because of our plans.

The right hon. Lady talks about bills, but her problem is that she has learned nothing from the disaster the Conservatives imposed on the country with the worst cost of living crisis in generations in this country—

Because Putin invaded Ukraine!

Oh! The hon. Member says it was because Putin invaded Ukraine—excellent, excellent! I congratulate him on his sedentary intervention—exactly, exactly! Why did prices go through the roof and why were we so exposed? Because of our exposure to fossil fuels. And what do the Conservatives want to do? Double down on our exposure to fossil fuels. As the shadow Secretary of State knows, the truth, as the Conservatives used to believe before they went a bit more wacky than they were before, is that there is only one route to energy security in the modern world, which is clean home-grown power that we control. Despite everything they say, the truth is that they have learned nothing from what happened.

Let me turn to the questions, such as they were, on the COP. By the way, the shadow Secretary of State complains about the COP being held in the Amazon. I have to say to her that, with the greatest of respect, I will take President Lula’s judgment about where the COP should be held rather than hers. For goodness’ sake, have a bit of respect for the Brazilian presidency! It decided that the right thing to do was to hold the COP in the Amazon to draw attention to the issue of deforestation, and she is complaining about its decisions to make the COP possible—for goodness’ sake!

On the point about the TFFF, we are supportive of it, and we will keep under review whether we can make a contribution. It was because of fiscal circumstances that we did not, but we are investing more than £1 billion over five years in countering deforestation. I am proud of what we are doing on that and the Congo basin.

On the point about British leadership, the right hon. Lady could not be more wrong about the role of Britain on these things. What people are seeing is an ambitious Government who are leading on these issues, so there is actually some respect for what Britain is suggesting others should do. There is a record under both parties that we need to learn from here, and I say this as politely as I can to the Conservative party: ambition at home is what makes possible leadership abroad. We passed the Climate Change Act in 2008, which she now wants to rip up, and 60 countries followed us. We put net zero into law by 2050, and she wants to rip it up. I praise Theresa May for that, but is it not extraordinary that I can praise Theresa May, but the Conservative party cannot do so? She put net zero by 2050 into law, which the Conservatives want to rip up, and 80% of global GDP has followed us.

I will end by saying that there is a truth here, which is that the Conservatives used to aspire to global Britain. Now, they have simply become the party of little Britain, and it really does not look good.

I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.

My right hon. Friend rightly reminded us of the progress that was made at COP. The recommitment to limiting global warming to no more than 1.5° is hugely important. He was honest in saying that we did not get everything we wanted, and that is sensible. However, he also reminded us of the absolute seriousness of climate breakdown, and that we must take every action possible. That goes beyond COP, and I hope he agrees that that work should continue whether or not it is in relation to a COP.

The Secretary of State started to talk about energy security, and I want to link this subject to that, because there is a worrying tendency towards a loss of support for the transition. Does he agree that it is really important, especially in the light of the ongoing aggression from Russia—and we have just had a statement, including on Ukraine, demonstrating it—that we make it clear to people that energy security and climate breakdown are very strongly linked, and that the answer to both of them is the energy transition?

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The reason we have seen a movement of support for the transition away from fossil fuels is not simply climate-related, but energy security-related. Lots of countries, including Britain, recognise—unwittingly helpfully, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) said this from a sedentary position—that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine showed our vulnerability due to our reliance on fossil fuels. At a very striking roundtable hosted by Marina Silva, the Environment Minister in Brazil, many countries from the global north and the global south said the same thing, which is that, for them, the move away from fossil fuels towards home-grown clean energy is the route to energy security, so he makes a very important point.

The only other point I would make is that my hon. Friend is right that these negotiations are hard and painstaking. We have to look at the progress that has been made over the course of the 30 years. It is tough, and different countries are in different positions, but that is what these talks are all about.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

COP30 was the first climate summit since the world experienced a full year of global warming above 1.5°C. That is a stark reminder of the urgency we collectively face. At home, due to extreme weather, our farmers faced their worst harvest on record and lost billions in income from arable crops, while we saw devastating wildfires, doubling records, that wiped out national parks and local environments that are precious to everyone. These are the costs of inaction and climate breakdown here in the UK.

I was proud to be part of a cross-party group of MPs who attended this COP and to carry with me the hopes of young people in South Cambridgeshire who sent me pictures, videos and poems. Freya, aged 11, wrote:

“I don’t want to just inherit my future. I want to be able to shape the decisions and actions that others are taking on my behalf, because I am afraid.”

I want to commend Brazil, the Secretary of State, the UK negotiating team and all those who worked tirelessly to keep the COP process alive, despite relentless attacks from climate denialism, delay and deception. The multilateral system is far from perfect, but it is the best alternative we have for global co-operation on climate change. There were positives: the pledges to cut methane; the recognition of the links between climate, nature and public health; the commitment to triple adaptation finance, which we know from Hurricane Melissa in Jamaica is absolutely critical; and the demonstration by business that the transition is an economic imperative and opportunity.

The global climate action agenda is just so inspiring and has a massive impact, but we know that hope was not matched by delivery: there is still no credible plan to reduce the gap between current national commitments and the reductions needed to stay below 1.5°C; the refusal to reference fossil fuels and the transition away in the final text, despite it being the root cause of the crisis, was a staggering failure; and the Prime Minister’s unexpected and inexplicable decision not to support the Tropical Forests Forever Facility was really, really disturbing. This was what Brazil launched: an innovative investment facility to save tropical forests and give them a value while standing.

I agreed with much—not all—of what the hon. Lady said. On her overall point about the fact that we have so many countries driving forward with action, she is absolutely right. On her point about the gap to achieving 1.5°C, she is also absolutely right. In a sense, part of what the future of these COPs will be about is each country driving others towards greater ambition, because we know we need greater ambition. It is also important to look at where the world has come from. The multilateral process has all kinds of maddening aspects to it, but it has definitely made progress. On the point about business, she is absolutely right and that is really striking. The fact of the agreement and the fact of this staying on track is an important signal to business, just as the Climate Change Act 2008 is an important signal to business here at home.

On the hon. Lady’s point about the TFFF, let me say candidly that we have a very difficult fiscal situation in this country. We have not ruled out contributing to investing in the TFFF in future. It is, as the Prime Minister said, something that we will keep under review. Overall, I thank her for her support, because we want to keep as much of the cross-party consensus as we possibly can on this really important matter.

I was part of that same cross-party delegation to COP in Belém. We were proud to meet parliamentarians from all over the world who are absolutely invested in the COP process and still absolutely believe in its importance. I was struck by how many conversations we had about the UK’s enduring global leadership on climate change, from our landmark Climate Change Act in 2008 under the last Labour Government to our clean energy policies today. It is not just about driving down carbon emissions and climate change; it is also about Britain’s role in the world. Will the Secretary of State commit Britain to continuing to lead the way on driving down carbon emissions and saving our planet, and continuing to make the case that this action is making life in Britain for British people safer and cheaper?

My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. With the UK at 1% of global emissions, as I said in my statement, engaging with the world is incredibly important. There is huge respect for Britain on these issues. I give credit to some of the actions taken under the previous Government by Lord Sharma and Theresa May, because the different actions we have taken have built a legacy of British leadership and it is incredibly important to build on that.

I, too, would like to ask the Secretary of State some questions on the TFFF. I am glad that he is proud of the previous Government’s actions and innovation in setting up that facility. He has explained that there is a tough fiscal situation and that is why the Government are currently not committing to that fund, but it is disappointing that in the statement there is only sentence on the TFFF. It concludes that

“work on this was moved forward at COP”.

Will he please update the House on what specifically was “moved forward” at COP in relation to the TFFF? When will decisions be made in the future about a financial commitment to that facility?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and I am very happy to expand on what I said in my statement. We have worked—under the previous Government and under this Government, particularly in the last year—with the Brazilian Government on the design of the TFFF. Work was moved forward because a number of countries pledged investment in the TFFF. There were lots of discussions, at the side and indeed at the world leaders’ summit, on the TFFF and the innovative idea. We pledged both to keep under review our potential public financial contribution and to continue the work with the City of London on the TFFF. Obviously, that is a decision on the financial contribution. I know better than to speculate about these things, because they rely on the Treasury and other matters, but it is something we are going to look at over the coming months.

I, too, was on the cross-party delegation that attended COP, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes)—I take this opportunity to wish her a happy birthday. I welcome the Prime Minister’s global leadership on climate and his attendance at COP30 in Belém, and indeed the leading role played by the British cross-party contingent of MPs, Ministers, non-governmental organisations and our world-class scientists. My constituents sent me hundreds of messages ahead of my travel to COP30. Among them were asks about our plans for our clean energy transition. Will the Secretary of State outline to the House what Labour’s plans are for clean power by 2030, alongside our world-leading nationally determined contribution, and how we are encouraging other countries to act on the climate crisis?

I welcome the fact—I should have done so earlier—that my hon. Friend and other Members from all parties were at COP30. British Government representation is important, but so is British parliamentary representation and the more cross-party it is, as far as I am concerned, the better. My hon. Friend’s point about the NDCs is important. Our NDC, our 81% reduction, is based on the carbon budget passed by Boris Johnson in the run-up to COP26. We have taken that target, in good cross-party tradition, and put it forward as part of the UN framework. On clean power by 2030, we are driving ahead with our plans on clean energy, with more than £50 billion-worth of investment in clean energy pledged. All of that is a crucial contribution. Britain’s leadership on these issues is recognised and gives us more power in these discussions and negotiations.

Is it not a cruel confidence trick to suggest that 1.5°C is still achievable, when it manifestly is not? Earlier this month, the International Energy Agency confirmed 2.9°C by 2100 as its central scenario and that a 2.5°C increase by 2050 was totally unrealistic and unachievable. Would the Government not be better off spending our taxpayers’ money on adapting to the realities—increasing resilience and ensuring we improve our flood defences and so on—and preparing for the inevitable, instead of continuing to punish the British people?

I have had this exchange with the hon. Gentleman before—he is too pessimistic. If we had taken that approach before, we would be heading for 4°C or 5°C of global warming. Yes, it is true that the central scenario is somewhere between 2.3°C and 2.5°C depending on which figures one looks at, but the whole point is to bring the numbers down. People talk about negative tipping points, and we are right to be worried about those, which is why, I am afraid, we cannot just let it happen—it would be a disaster. We should also think about positive tipping points. On solar energy in the past decade, for example, we have exceeded the forecasts that the IEA and others had. We need to move towards those positive tipping points.

I am not giving up on 1.5°C, but I make this point to the hon. Gentleman: every fraction of a degree that we reduce warming will save many lives across the globe, prevent many disasters and reduce the costs that future generations face. I agree with him about investing in adaptation, but we have got to do both.

For a long time there has been a consensus on the need to take action against climate change in this House, so it is disappointing and saddening to see the Secretary of State, Members on the Government Benches and the Lib Dems having to come to this House to defend a position that used to be shared. I was proud to be at COP with my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) and with my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), who I wish a happy birthday, to see UK negotiators and Ministers taking a leading role in action to protect my generation and generations to come. Does the Secretary of State agree that Reform UK’s dangerous anti-climate politics show that with them our future is at risk?

My hon. Friend speaks incredibly well about this issue, and it is worth pausing and recognising what she has said. Since I have been involved in this issue, all the way back to David Cameron—I call him my nemesis—there has been a competition in this House for climate ambition. That was good, and it was recognised across the world—that was when the Conservative party won elections. My hon. Friend has said something really important; the sooner we can get back to that, the better. I do not think the British people want a culture war on climate. They do not want an imported US-style culture war, and the sooner the Conservative party recognises that, the better.

Increasing the sustainability of agriculture is a vital part of action on climate change, and it was particularly relevant at a COP held in the rainforest, which is under pressure from farming. Can the Secretary of State outline the discussions he had at COP on agriculture, and will he work with his colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to reverse this Government’s mistakes and provide UK farmers with the financial support they need to play their part?

We are making big investments in farming and agriculture. In answering the hon. Lady’s question, I will take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), who are both with me on the Front Bench. They were part of the negotiations and discussions, including on agriculture and the question of methane. The UK produced its methane action plan in the run-up to COP; methane reduction is an area where we can make quick progress that can have real benefit in bridging the gap to 1.5°C. There were definitely extensive discussions on that; the world made progress on methane and it is something that we will keep working on in the months ahead.

I am sure the Secretary of State would not necessarily like me to remind him that it is 16 years since the first COP he attended with me, which was significantly less successful than the one this year. I commend him for his great effort over that time in managing to demonstrate the UK’s leadership on climate change. That cannot be underestimated, and despite what some on the Opposition Benches think, we make a difference by demonstrating what is possible in climate actions here at home. Where we lead, others follow.

For that reason, the Secretary of State also knows how important nature is in contributing to tackling climate change, and how much our constituents value nature at home and abroad. In that light, financing is important, especially maintaining the amount of funding in the new international climate finance budget for nature projects. Will he confirm that a third of the new budget will be spent on nature projects, with half of that spent on protecting forests?

My hon. Friend reminds me how old I am, for which I am grateful! At various points in the middle of the night, Friday into Saturday, I could not help feeling a slight sense of Copenhagen post-traumatic stress disorder as I thought we were heading for no agreement. One of the things I consoled myself with was that the world is actually much further forward than it was when the Copenhagen summit foundered. On my hon. Friend’s important points about international finance and nature finance, despite the difficult fiscal circumstances, we have maintained funding of £11.6 billion over five years in the ICF. We will be making new announcements in the coming months, but the points that she makes about protecting nature and tackling the climate crisis going together are very well taken.

What commitments were secured at COP30 from the countries responsible for the highest carbon emissions—China, the US and India—to reduce their emissions, given that their leaders, Xi, Trump and Modi, could not even be bothered to attend? Or did those countries fail to commit to reducing their carbon emissions and to phasing out their use of fossil fuels, instead allowing the Secretary of State to walk his ideological path of net zero, which is destroying the UK’s industrial and manufacturing base and pushing our population into poverty with ever-higher energy bills?

I definitely disagree with the last part of the right hon. Lady’s question, because net zero is actually the greatest economic opportunity that we have, which is why we are going to create 400,000 new clean energy jobs by 2030. On the first part of her question, which is really important, let me answer her directly: I would like China to go further, but for the first time it has announced an absolute reduction in its emissions. It is really important to understand that. I think it could go further, but this is a very significant moment. When I was at COP 15 years ago, the notion that China would have had an absolute emissions target—never mind that it would be cutting its emissions—was frankly fanciful.

I did an event with the Indian Minister. Again, India could go further, but it has reached its target to have 50% of its electricity supplied by non-fossil fuel sources five years early—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member is shaking her head. She asked a question, and I am answering it. The notion that no other country is acting is frankly wrong.

The objections to global and national action on climate change frankly baffle me, not least because of the climate emergency, but also because of the opportunity it brings to our country. My constituency has had good clean energy jobs for decades through Heysham 1 and 2 nuclear power stations—I keep pushing for Heysham 3. Does the Secretary of State agree that the agreements at COP30 and the Government’s actions on climate change are an opportunity to not only fight climate change and create good jobs, but improve living standards in our country and across the globe?

I agree 100%. For all that the Opposition say, according to the Confederation of British Industry the net zero economy is growing three times faster than the economy as a whole. There is a reason why China, India and all those other countries are driving into clean energy: they see it as a massive economic opportunity. The Opposition would say, “Let’s just rip up that economic opportunity.” Frankly, that would be a betrayal of not just young people, who will look at them and think, “What about our future?” but people today who want those good jobs.

Right across the world, people’s day-to-day lives are being destroyed by the impacts of climate change and associated industrial activity, from the indigenous tribes of the Amazon seeing their rainforest home destroyed around them, to island peoples in the Pacific, whose nations will literally cease to exist as water levels rise. To many people looking at COP30, it feels like developed nations are taking a somewhat protectionist view at the expense of millions of people. In years to come, when the Secretary of State looks back at this COP, will he be able to say that he did absolutely everything he could for those people? From here, it does not look good for so many people who are on the brink.

That is an absolutely fair question; it is one I ask myself a lot. Are we doing everything we can despite the global pressures and how difficult it is? I will tell the House this: as it looked like we were going to end up with no deal, I thought a lot about what signal that would send. At the same time, though, we wanted to have as robust an agreement as possible. My answer to the hon. Gentleman’s very legitimate question is yes; we are trying to do absolutely everything we can, but it is hard because 190-something countries are all wrestling with their own dilemmas and constraints. However, he is right to push us to do as much as we can, because we are the generation that both knows the scale of the crisis that confronts us and has the chance to do something about it. Future generations will have less opportunity to do anything about it because the pathway will be more set. He is absolutely right to push us.

First, I thank my hon. Friend, who is the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, for the really outstanding job they do. I think the observations from my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) on the Conservative party are right; I will not add to them because he put them well.

The transition away is the hardest part of the negotiations, as I said, and that is not surprising, because some countries are extremely reliant on fossil fuels and are very reluctant—I think, in retrospect, they are quite reluctant about what was agreed at COP28, which is part of the difficulties we have. I agree with my hon. Friend about continuing to push for this to be part of the negotiations, but I think we also have to accept, as I said in my statement, that part of what we did on coal—and, to be fair, what the previous Government did on coal—is work with others. We have to work as much as we can both inside and outside the formal negotiations with others to drive these issues forward. The lesson of COP history is that we keep pushing forward on these issues; it might be slightly three steps forward, two steps back, but we do make progress.

If I may, I will focus on the international rather than domestic aspects. I welcome the Secretary of State’s ecumenical approach in respect of the work of the former Government. I have been going to COPs since Copenhagen in 2009, with the last one being COP28 in the UAE, and I do wonder whether, at least in their current form, they are worth continuing. They are hugely expensive jamborees; hydrocarbon interests are distorting the original aim of COP; the wealthy countries are increasingly in the dock, but have decreasing money available. On the wider aspect, it is the poorest people in the world who suffer first and hardest from climate change. There is no doubt that the appalling humanitarian crisis in Darfur is exacerbated by climate change, yet we are doing very little about that.

I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman and his work under the previous Government on a whole range of development and climate issues, and I thank him for his question. I think my view of COP is a bit like the Churchill view of democracy: it is the least-worst system we have. For all the complaints and all the problems with it, we are bringing together 193 or 194 countries and, as he will know from his experience of COPs, there is an element of accountability: the smallest island states can confront the big emitters.

This is hard, and it is painful, but I know that the right hon. Gentleman cares passionately about these issues. We skated over it in these discussions, but I would just say to him that the agreement to treble adaptation finance within the new collective quantified goal that was agreed last year, which the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) drew attention to, is a significant development. It is not as much as many of the developing countries want, and looking at the scale of need—Hurricane Melissa, and so on—we can see the difficulties. I was involved in the £100 billion overall finance that Gordon Brown produced around the Copenhagen summit; again, it was hard, and developing countries complained about it being late, but it did set a bar of accountability for the developed world. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that I am sure the process could be better, but I do think it is an important mechanism of accountability and driving progress.

It is great to see my right hon. Friend back at the Dispatch Box once more after taking a global leading role at COP. We could have no better Secretary of State in this area. Whatever the Opposition say, the Secretary of State in the global mainstream of climate leadership. As he knows, article 6 was operationalised at last at COP29 last year. The UK, and particularly the City of London, could have a global leading role in utilising article 6 to preserve nature to afforest and restore wetlands, peat bogs and marine environments. We know that countries around the world—not just in the global south, but countries including Ukraine—are putting article 6 into domestic law. What more could we do in the UK to ensure that our City of London, and our global finance money, is creating that natural capital through article 6 around the world?

My hon. Friend draws attention to something that is relatively obscure in the big scheme of things that we talk about in this House, but which is incredibly important none the less. Article 6 on carbon markets was agreed last year after, I think, a decade of effort. I want to pay tribute, by the way, to Rachel Kyte, our climate envoy, who was very much part of that, and indeed Ruth Davis, our nature envoy. Two things are interesting about this. The first is that the Brazilians launched what they call the open coalition on compliance carbon markets to drive work on carbon markets forward. I was part of those discussions. The second interesting thing that has happened is that the idea of the carbon border adjustment mechanism, or CBAM, which has been called for by lots of Members of this House, has actually pushed forward some of the work on carbon markets. I think I am right in saying that 7% of the world was covered by carbon markets 15 years ago, and now it is 28%, so progress is moving forward. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the potential role of the City of London in this.

Like the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), I am a survivor of COP15 in Copenhagen. I have seen just what hard work it is, and I commend the cross-party delegation for representing our country so well in Belém. However, environmental campaigners have raised concerns over the carbon budget delivery and the growth plan’s reliance on unproven technologies such as sustainable aviation fuel and carbon capture and sequestration. How will the Government ensure that the UK is not simply offshoring ecological impacts, including deforestation, or relying on fantasy future technologies on our pathway to net zero?

First, I thank the hon. Lady for her advocacy on these issues now and over a very long period, which is widely recognised. On CCS and SAF, I think we will have to agree to disagree, based on all the evidence I have seen. For the real nerds present, among which I obviously count myself, I strongly recommend the IEA’s “World Energy Outlook”, which came out during the COP—I have slightly lost track of when—and which looks at how far we are from the net zero pathway. It actually shows that we have overachieved on renewables, but we need to go further on some other issues. All the experts I respect say that there is no route to decarbonisation without carbon sequestration technology in different forms. As well as that, CCS is a big jobs creator. CCS and SAF are an important part of the future, and technological development is part of what we need. We have existing technologies, such as solar, wind and batteries, and they can also help us. We have seen a driving down of the cost of those, and we need to do the same for these other technologies.

I was not at COP, unlike some of my colleagues, but I am so glad that others were there and saw, in particular, the enduring leadership of the Secretary of State on this issue. I am glad that my right hon. Friend is not listening to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who said that we should be adapting to reality, because it is the poorest people in our societies, both at home and abroad, who often pay the ultimate price for our failure to tackle the climate crisis. It is also one of the biggest drags on growth.

It is because of the powerful leadership that the Secretary of State has shown at COP this weekend that I have to press him. He will know of the concerns many of us have that decisions at home around issues such as Jackdaw and Rosebank could undermine that leadership. Those developments could lead to nearly 300 million tonnes of carbon emissions and fatally attack our ability to stick to the 1.5°C increase in temperature. It would also not help the cost of living crisis. I know that there is a process ahead. Can he assure us that he will rethink the developments and that our global leadership as well as our local cost of living will be foremost in his mind when he makes a decision on Rosebank and Jackdaw?

I am not going to comment on planning decisions. I will, however, make the overall point that this Government had two manifesto commitments: to keep existing oil and gas fields in the North sea open for their lifetime, and not to issue new licences to explore new fields. Those were important commitments. They are how we will combine the just transition in the North sea, including for North sea communities, and ensure that we have environmental leadership. We are committed to both those things. I thank my hon. Friend for her wider advocacy on all these issues.

I am grateful to learn from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) that I am not the only person who was not invited to COP30. But I followed it closely and was very pleased to see the emergence of the Belém 4X agreement, which committed its signatories to quadrupling the production and deployment of sustainable fuel molecules by 2035. That would include, most importantly for the United Kingdom, green hydrogen. Unfortunately, while I could find the names of India, Italy and, obviously, Brazil on the agreement, I could not find the United Kingdom’s name. Did I miss it?

The right hon. Member did not miss it. Broadly, we are supporters of green hydrogen and many other things he mentions. Our issue is to do with whether the quadrupling of biofuels can be done in a sustainable way. We think that work now needs to be done to ensure that there are proper guardrails around this issue. The broader point he makes about diversification, green hydrogen and all those things is something we very much agree with.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the leadership he has shown internationally and nationally over the past 20 years—it has been quite remarkable. I thank him for his statement today. He will have seen over the time that has elapsed since COP26 in Glasgow the change in the language that is used. In Glasgow, when discussing the Glasgow climate pact, we talked about “phasing out” coal and fossil fuel subsidies. We then moved to “phasing down” and then to “transitioning away”. Now we have a “plan” or “pathway” to transitioning away. That, I am sure, causes alarm bells to ring in his head, as it does in mine. Can he tell us what he sees as the role of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance? He spoke about the need to work with other countries for a really ambitious future. How does he propose to do that?

My hon. Friend has enormous expertise on these issues, which he showed with his question. BOGA, as it is known, has played a really important role in assembling this coalition of more than 80 countries over the global north and global south. Indeed, I was proud to be part of an event and this precedent we set with the alliance on these issues.

My hon. Friend’s wider point is correct: this is hard. There are countries that are resistant to this change and think that previous agreements went too far. That is part of the dialogue being had at these COPs. I think we learn a lesson from what has happened on coal though. The progress the world has made on coal, including the UK, is partly reflected in the agreement at COP26, but it is also about the high-ambition coalitions that form together. As I said in response to an earlier question, we have to do both these things. We have to work in the context of the agreements—but, because they rely on unanimity, we cannot always get what we want—and then we have to work in these broader coalitions.

It was disappointing to hear from the shadow Secretary of State that tackling climate change and attending COP is student politics. Clearly it is not; it is about grown-ups coming to the table. I thank the Secretary of State and his team for their commitment and work to get the agreement at COP. As we start looking towards COP31, how are we advancing and monitoring the domestic implementation of our nationally determined contributions? Can the Secretary of State also set out how global agreements at COP translate to practical support for communities and businesses in Huddersfield?

My hon. Friend made a very important point with her opening remarks, which I will let Members absorb. On her specific questions, we have a very important carbon budget monitoring system within Government. It is important to say that at the same time as the Conservatives are saying that they want to rip up the Act that they supported, and that David Cameron even had a hand in helping to shape from opposition, so many countries around the world still ask us about it and want to work out how to emulate it. It is head-spinning really.

On my hon. Friend’s point about her constituents, she is absolutely right. In so many different ways, we want to support her constituents. This is about not just future generations but good jobs today, cutting bills, helping community organisations to put solar panels on their rooftops, schools and hospitals and all those things. It is about bringing the benefits of clean energy to her community and communities across Britain.

Order. I will finish this statement in the next 10 to 15 minutes, so I would be grateful if Members and the Secretary of State could keep their answers short.

We are at a pivotal moment in the climate crisis. COP30 showed us the fossil fuel industry and its political cheerleaders doing their very best to de-rail action. I thank the Secretary of State for his work. I have two questions on points he raised in his statement. First, he said that ambition must be matched with finance, yet the UK has not contributed to the Tropical Forest Forever Facility or the just transition mechanism. Is it not time for the UK to put its money where its mouth is on this? Secondly, on the point of transitioning away from fossil fuels, the UK faces a defining test: Rosebank. Will he reject the Rosebank oilfield and fully back the just transition that our country needs?

On the second point, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). On the first point, I think she is being a little unfair, to put it mildly, on the UK. We led the process of agreeing last year an ambitious NCQG on overall finance. We were part of an agreement that saw the trebling of adaptation finance by 2035, targeting those resources. She knows the fiscal situation that we face as a country. I say very clearly to her, and to all Members of this House who take an interest in these issues, that we absolutely have not ruled out contributing to the TFFF in the future.

The Secretary of State will know my constituents well and will know that climate change is a huge concern for them. They are particularly concerned that the Government talk a lot about tackling climate change during COP, but all year round it falls off the agenda. Will he reassure my constituents that this is an ongoing commitment from the Government to tackle climate change and that the agreed road map for fossil fuels will not somehow become a loophole for climate inaction?

My hon. Friend asks a good and important question about keeping climate change on the agenda all year round. This is partly about international negotiations, but it is as much about the work that we do at home. Whether announcing new SMRs in north Wales, showing the jobs that come from tackling the climate crisis or putting solar panels on the roofs of schools and hospitals, that is all part of the argument for how this is the route to the right thing not just for future generations but for today’s generations. On the fossil fuel road map, we will work with Brazil on that, and I assure her that it will not be the thing that she fears.

I thank the Secretary of State for the recent decision on the small modular reactor at Wylfa. To stay committed to the goals of the Paris agreement, we need to speed up the roll-out of technologies such as marine energy. Ynys Môn is home to the world-leading, community-owned Morlais tidal stream project. However, developers require a strategic vision from the Government to develop at pace. Will he consider setting a £40 million tidal stream and a £7 million wave energy ringfence in the next renewable auctions, as advocated for by the UK Marine Energy Council?

I thank the hon. Lady for her support for the SMR fleet in north Wales; the announcement that we made was a really important one. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, who is not in the Chamber, is very much involved with the Marine Energy Council. We have been proud in previous auctions to support tidal energy, which has a really important role. It is obviously a more expensive technology at the moment; we need to drive its costs down. I will pass her request on to him, and I am sure that he will get back to her.

I commend the Secretary of State for his ongoing commitment to fighting the scourge of climate change in the face of rising denialism. I was really pleased to hear him leave the door open to future contributions to the TFFF. Will he spell out the circumstances in which they might come to reassure me and my constituents, who are deeply concerned that that did not come forward at this COP?

That would be telling. Those are the discussions that we need to have with colleagues across government, including in the Treasury, as we look at the ICF programme and others in the future. But I do want to reassure my hon. Friend. We are proud to have worked on the TFFF over all the time of this Government, and indeed part of the time under the previous Government, we think it is a very innovative financing mechanism, and we are absolutely serious about keeping a future UK contribution under review.

We all believe in keeping our planet sustainable and being good custodians of our environment. What most people do not agree with, however, is the madness of net zero, with its astronomical cost to the taxpayer for minimal impact on a global scale and the damage that unachievable targets are having on agriculture and manufacturing. Will the Energy Secretary tell us what he is doing to ensure sustainability, given the six tonnes of CO₂ he is supposed to have emitted as a result of two flights to Brazil to be part of COP30 along with 56,000 others, the £1,250-a-night hotels and the estimated £22,000 on flight costs? It would appear to most of the general public to be a case of, “Do as I say and not as I do.”

I could not disagree more with the hon. Lady. Honestly, this is a really important point: either we engage in international action on the global stage or we do not. We are 1% of global emissions, and unless we engage with the countries that produce the other 99% of global emissions, we will never keep our country safe. Do not look into the crystal ball; look at the record. Thirty years of COPs have reduced global warming forecasts from 4°—indeed 5°—to something like 2.3° to 2.5°. It is about multilateralism and working with others; that is so important. This is about our view of Britain. Are we a small, shrivelled country that cannot have any sway, or are we a country that can engage and stand tall on the global stage? That is what I believe.

I thank the Secretary of State for his update and commend his continued leadership on this issue. I welcome the conference’s focus on strengthening multilateralism, including creating the Belém mechanism for a just global transition. But beyond the walls of the conference, here in the UK we need to be moving much faster away from oil and gas. The UK’s four biggest banks continue to finance polluters, and the drilling licence for Rosebank still has not been rejected. Does the Secretary of State agree that it should be the big polluters subsidising the taxpayer in our climate response and not the other way round?

I will be brief. My hon. Friend raises the issue of the banks. I encourage her to contribute to our consultation on transition plans for financial institutions and large companies, because that is an important part of making sure that the investments being made are aligned with net zero and the wider argument on tackling the climate crisis. She makes an important point.

Other countries in straitened fiscal circumstances did pledge to the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, so will the Secretary of State explain why the Government failed to commit a single penny, despite the fund being conceived and designed with British minds? There was even talk of it being headquartered here in the City, yet not a penny of official development assistance is being used. That damages our climate credibility as well as our relationship with Brazil and with our own future generations. What should I say to schoolchildren in my constituency who are involved in student politics and who asked me to go to Belém to help save the rainforest?

The hon. Lady should tell her constituents that we played a big role in helping to devise the TFFF, that we have absolutely not ruled out contributing to it in the future and that we are determined that the fund succeeds. As I have said, we will obviously keep the question of a UK contribution under review.

I thank the Secretary of State for his clear leadership, which is in stark contrast to the shadow Secretary of State. I was dismayed to hear her comments, which offered a complete dereliction of duty to future generations and followed others’ failures of leadership rather than showing leadership. I warmly welcome the role that the UK played under the Secretary of State’s leadership in championing the road map for fossil fuel phase out, but there is an elephant in the room. Will the Government continue that leadership by ruling out extraction at Rosebank?

On that question, I refer to the answer I gave a few minutes ago. My hon. Friend made a really important wider point. All hon. Members should ask this: when people look back in 10 or 20 years, will they say, “Why were they going on about that climate change business? That all turned out to be a passing fad.” I do not think so. Or will they say, “They were the generation who had the opportunity to act—why weren’t they doing more?” I think the latter is much more likely than the former.

Does the Secretary of State not see the irony of 53,000 people—about 400 from each of the participating countries—flying to Brazil and landing on airfields cut out of the tropical forest to discuss, of all things, the reduction of CO₂ emissions in the atmosphere? Of course, they reached the conclusion that to keep our homes warm and our economies ticking over, we will still need oil and gas.

The Secretary of State has talked about the UK’s vulnerability in depending on foreign sources of fuel. Why, then, does he resist and block the use of the plentiful gas and oil resources we have in our economy that could generate jobs, raise tax revenue, cut costs and reduce imports?

I just do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman—he and I have been having this disagreement for 20 years. I will concentrate on his first question. The truth is—I say this to him in all honesty—if we disengage from the world, it will not serve Britain’s interests; it will harm our interests. When we think about all the problems that the world faces, including but not limited to the climate crisis, multilateralism and working with others is the only solution. The idea that we should not engage in COP because it involves travel seems very mistaken.

Leadership at home, leadership globally, and now we need leadership on the fossil fuels road map. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will play a pivotal role in setting the terms of reference, the scope and the ambition of that. It is also important to build the industrial strategy to ensure that we can see a just transition for so many countries. How will he lead that opportunity for our country and others to ensure that fossil fuels are the focus leading into COP31?

My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and I will concentrate on the first bit of her question. This is very much about the just transition. Seventy thousand jobs were lost in the North sea under the last Government and they did not put in place the alternatives. That is why our investments in carbon capture and storage, offshore wind, electricity networks and all those things are crucial to provide the jobs of the future, as well as having North sea oil and gas fields open for their lifetime. We need to do both those things, and that is what the Government are determined to do.

During a stimulating discussion with the highly informed students of Ashlawn school in Rugby yesterday, I mentioned COP30 as an example of how global politics is highly relevant to them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that strong British leadership at multilateral negotiations is part of a rebalancing that is more important than ever; preferencing the interests of the younger and future generations and giving them meaningful agency in our world?

That is a good point to end on. I congratulate the students at Ashlawn school for their interest. With the greatest of respect to all Members of this House, the young people at that school will have to live with the consequences of the decisions we make for much longer than us. I intend to live for a long time; nevertheless, they are the people who will have to deal with those consequences. We owe it to them to focus on doing everything we can to tackle this issue.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the only way we can do that is by working with other countries and by putting our faith not in letting each other sink or swim but in multilateralism. For all its flaws, that is what this COP was about and that is what the COP process is about. People should not despair because, actually, over 30 years, the world has made progress.