COP26 commitments to cut emissions by 2030 “still way short”, Starmer warns

The world is on track for “devastating” global warming even if all the commitments made by countries at COP26 to reduce emissions by 2030 are fully implemented, Keir Starmer has warned as he described the pledges as “still way short”.

Following a statement from Boris Johnson on the climate summit today, the Labour leader praised COP president Alok Sharma and his team and said they “knew that COP26 was the most important international summit ever hosted on these shores”.

“At Paris, we set out the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. That is the tipping point beyond which – beyond that the world is set to see billions of people facing extreme heatwaves, countless millions displaced from their homes and the destruction of natural wonders,” he added.

“The science doesn’t negotiate and no politician can move the goalpost. To have any hope of 1.5°C, we must halve global emissions by 2030. The task of Glasgow was to set out credible plans for delivering that – but whilst the summit has been one of modest progress, we cannot kid ourselves: plans to cut emissions are still way short.

“The pledges made in Glasgow for 2030, even if all fully implemented, represent less than 25% of the ambition required. Rather than a manageable 1.5°C, they put us on track for a devastating 2.4C. And that’s why, according to the UN general secretary, the goal of 1.5C is now on life support.”

The Prime Minister told MPs today that the conference was a summit that “proved the doubters and cynics wrong”, claiming: “COP 26 did not just succeed in keeping 1.5°C alive it succeeded in doing something no UN climate conference has done before by uniting the world in calling time on coal.”

Experts and campaigners have criticised the deal agreed as the conference ended. India and China forced a last-minute change to the wording of the agreement, committing signatories to “phasing down” rather than “phasing out” the use of coal. The agreement left Alok Sharma visibly upset when closing the summit.

Johnson declared at a press conference on Sunday: “Whether the language is phase down or phase out doesn’t seem to me as a speaker of English to make that much of a difference. The direction of travel is pretty much the same.”

Scientists said ahead of COP26 that greenhouse gas emissions must fall by about 45% this decade for global temperatures to stay within 1.5°C of pre-industrial levels. Countries were asked to come to the summit with plans to reach net zero by the middle of the century and shorter-term national goals for reductions by 2030.

The government claimed that “190 countries and organisations” agreed to end use of coal at the summit. Starmer pointed out that only 46 of the signatories to this deal were countries, of those only 23 were new signatories, of those ten do not use coal, and that it did not include the biggest users: China, the US, India and Australia.

“With no public pressure, the big emitters were emboldened and they clubbed together to gut the main deal’s wording on coal. Only someone who thinks words are meaningless could now argue that an agreement to phase down coal is the same as an agreement to phase it out,” the Labour leader said this afternoon.

“The Prime Minister is right to say we need to power past coal and phase out fossil fuels, but his ability to lead on the issue internationally has been hampered by his actions at home,” Starmer added.

“It has never made sense for the government to be flirting with a new coal mine or to green light a Cambo oil field. So will he rewrite the planning framework to rule out coal and will he now say no to Cambo?”

According to a report published last week, the short-term goals set out by countries at the summit would result in temperatures in excess of 2.4°C by the end of this century, causing devastation across the globe.

The estimate from Climate Action Tracker stands contrary to an evaluation of long-term commitments made by countries at the conference, such as that made by India to achieve net zero by 2070, which suggested heating could be held to 1.9°C or 1.8°C.

Climate Action Tracker found that emissions will be twice as high in 2030 as they need to be to stay within 1.5°C and analysts have identified a gap between what countries have said they will do on limiting emissions and their plans in reality.

Below is the full text of Starmer’s response to Johnson’s statement.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to pay tribute to the COP president. Whatever the shortcomings of the deal, his diligence, his integrity and his commitment to the climate are clear to all. And to his team of civil servants. Their dedication, their expertise, their service. Never in doubt, but always remarkable. They knew that COP26 was the most important international summit ever hosted on these shores. Why? The simple maths of the climate crisis.

At Paris, we set out the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees. That is the tipping point—beyond which the world is set to see: billions of people facing extreme heatwaves; countless millions displaced from their homes; and the destruction of natural wonders like the world’s coral reefs. The science doesn’t negotiate and no politician can move the goalposts. To have any hope of 1.5 degrees we must halve global emissions by 2030.

The task of Glasgow was to set out credible plans for delivering that and whilst the summit has made modest progress, we cannot kid ourselves. Plans to cut emissions still fall way short. The pledges made at Glasgow for 2030 – even if fully implemented – represent less than 25% of the ambition required. Rather than the manageable 1.5 degrees, they put us on track for a devastating 2.4 degrees. That’s why – according to the UN Secretary General – the goal of 1.5 degrees is now left on “life support”.

So now we need to deliver intensive care. That starts by being honest about what has gone wrong. The summit was held back by guileless boosterism which only served to embolden the big emitters. The Prime Minister praised inadequate net-zero plans. Australia was called heroic, even though their plan was so slow that it was in line with 4 degrees of global warming. By providing this cover we had little chance of exerting influence on other big emitters and we saw many more disappointing national plans.

The Prime Minister dressed up modest sectoral commitments as transformational. Earlier in COP, the Government claimed that “190 countries and organisations” had agreed to end coal. On closer inspection: only 46 of them were countries; of that only 23 were new signatories; of those 23, 10 do not even use coal! And the 13 that remained did not include the biggest coal users – China, the US, India, and Australia.

With no public pressure, the big emitters were emboldened and they clubbed together to gut the main deal’s wording on coal. Only someone who thinks words are meaningless could now argue that an agreement to phase down coal is the same as an agreement to phase it out. And there was the long-overdue $100bn in climate finance. It has still not been delivered even though this money was promised to developing countries over a decade ago.

Failure to deliver has damaged trust and created a huge obstacle to building the coalition that can drive climate action between the most vulnerable developing countries and ambitious developed countries. That coalition was the foundation of the landmark Paris Agreement in 2015 – creating a pincer movement to maximise pressure on the world’s biggest emitters, including China.

It is deeply regrettable that, at Glasgow, we did not see a repeat. Instead, developing countries were still having to make the case for the long promised $100 billion in the final hours of this summit. Given all this and the imperative to revive 1.5 degrees from life-support, the question is – what is going to be different in the next year in the run up to COP27?

Britain has particular responsibility as COP President. First, we need to reassemble the Paris climate coalition and build trust with the developing world. But cutting overseas aid does not build trust, it destroys it. So, will the Prime Minister immediately reverse the cuts?

Second, there can be no free passes for major emitters. Including our friends. We are doing a trade deal with Australia, where we have allowed them to drop Paris temperature commitments. That was a mistake. Will the Prime Minister put it right?

Third, the Prime Minister is right that we need to power past coal and phase out fossil fuels. But his ability to lead on the issue internationally has been hampered by his actions at home. It has never made sense for the government to be flirting with a new coal mine or to green light the Cambo Oil field. Will he rewrite the planning framework to rule out coal? And will he now say no to Cambo?

Finally, will he sort out the Chancellor? The Budget, delivered in the week before COP26, as world leaders began to arrive on these shores did not even mention climate change, gave a tax break for domestic flights and fell woefully short of the investment needed to deliver green jobs and a fair transition.

Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has been the wrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. And Glasgow has been a missed opportunity – a stumble forwards when we needed to make great strides, more climate delay when we needed delivery and 1.5 degrees is now on life support. We still have a chance to keep 1.5 degrees alive but only with intensive care. We have to speak honestly about the challenge we face to rebuild the coalition that we need and to take on the big emitters. We can and we must change course.