The UK is at risk of ending its presidency of next month’s UN climate talks in disunity and chaos, amid cabinet disagreements over green policy and confusion over who will attend the Cop27 summit.
Disputes over climate policy threaten to hamper the UK’s ability to hold together the fragile coalition of developed and developing countries it built at last year’s Cop26 climate summit in Glasgow. Failure to do so would not only tarnish the UK’s achievements there, but add further strain to the already strained global climate negotiations.
Liz Truss has not yet said whether she will attend Cop27, which starts in just under a month, but Business Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg will go – to the dismay of green groups because he supports fracking, expanding oil production and gas, and cast doubt on climate science.
It is also reported that the Prime Minister has effectively prevented King Charles from attending the summit, despite his presence on previous cops. Even worse from the campaigners’ point of view, in her Conservative Party conference speech on Wednesday, Truss described environmental groups as part of an “anti-growth coalition” that she vowed to defeat.
Although Truss and Rees-Mogg are nominally committed to meeting the UK’s legally binding target of reaching net zero emissions by 2050, the target received little attention in the mini-budget and their main policies to ease the energy crisis have been to expand fossil fuels.
Alok Sharma, the cabinet minister who acted as president of the Cop26 summit, broke ranks to urge King Charles to attend Cop27, as did climate minister Zach Goldsmith. Sharma, who stayed neutral during the Tory leadership race, may struggle to keep a place in the Truss cabinet after Cop27, when the UK hands over the presidency to Egypt.
Meanwhile, the Egyptian government took the highly unusual step this week of warning the UK not to “backtrack” on its climate commitments and pointedly re-extending its invitation to King Charles.
Overseas observers are dismayed by the spectacle. Paul Bledsoe, a former climate adviser in the Clinton White House who is now at the Progressive Policy Institute think tank in Washington, said: “Britain under Liz Truss seems so far to be taking three steps back and none forward on of the climate. First, Truss handcuffed King Charles, whose long-standing climate advocacy has been an inspiration to millions and integral to the progress of UK politics. Second, the Tories have proposed a laissez faire budget that will prevent the UK from meeting its ambitious net zero targets on time. And third, Truss was hesitant to commit to attending Cop27 in Egypt. It is hard to imagine a more shambolic and disappointing end to the presidency of the UK cops.’
The mess is reminiscent of the equally blunder-prone start to the UK’s Cop26 role. In January 2020, instead of setting out its plans as expected, the government sacked its initial choice for president, former Tory energy minister Claire O’Neill, on the eve of the official launch. The chaotic event continued, with a bewildered Italian prime minister looking on in disbelief as Boris Johnson slogged his way through an incoherent speech about electric taxis, while behind the scenes his aides desperately rang around former Tory leaders who had all turned down the presidency.
“I mean, come on!” was the exasperated response of Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and two-time UN climate envoy, speaking for many. However, the government finally got its plans together and Sharma was handed the brief, along with his role as business secretary. Soon after, the Covid-19 outbreak and lockdown forced the delay of Cop26 by a year. But by the time the drama-free Sharma arrived in Glasgow, he had built a global coalition of rich and poor countries so strong that even last-minute shocks could not prevent diplomatic success.
“The way it started was shambolic, but as the presidency went on it got better and people gave a lot of credit to Sharma and Boris Johnson,” said Sean Spiers, executive director of the Green Alliance think tank. “This is an area where the UK has both a responsibility to lead and leadership. Cop26 was very strong in this regard. It would be terrible to sacrifice that.
The difference this time is that Sharma is isolated within the cabinet, with little or no support. Johnson, while seemingly absent for much of the build-up to Cop26, made a strong impression at the conference and showed a clear green streak as prime minister. He spearheaded three major pieces of environmental legislation in his memo, which Truss is now eviscerating in his crusade against regulations. Assured of Prime Ministerial support, Sharma shone.
“Alok Sharma has done a really good job. He identified the landing sites for the deal and directed the ship to them. It has done much better than most people expected,” said Tom Burke, co-founder of the green think tank E3G.
Cop27 was always going to be a busy and difficult summit. At Cop26, countries agreed to focus on limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, a significant improvement on previous years when emissions reductions were focused on the more dangerous 2C limit. But it ended up with unfinished business, as the countries’ commitments to reduce emissions fell short of the mark. So the governments agreed to return this November with improved commitments. In Sharma’s words, the 1.5C target was “on life support … his pulse is weak.”
This year, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and skyrocketing energy prices have further threatened that fragile consensus. The UK is not alone in seeking more fossil fuels – Germany has returned, marginally and temporarily, to coal-fired power generation; US pumps more gas; French companies are considering using oil instead of gas. Along with the geopolitical tensions caused by Russia’s invasion, the cost of living, energy and food crises will create chaos for the negotiations.
Whitehall insiders point out that Egypt is responsible for Cop27, but the successful cops’ previous presidents may play a major role in continuing their legacy. The French, who worked furiously for two years on “360-degree diplomacy” in preparation for the Paris summit in 2015, have spent the years since touring the world consolidating support for the climate. Laurent Fabius, the then French foreign minister who gave the hammer on the Paris Agreement, was treated like a rock star at Cop26, with admirers queuing for autographs, and made a telling intervention in the late stages.
Sharma, who was briefly mooted this summer for a possible UN climate role, may enjoy similar treatment in the coming years as his presidency has been widely praised. But Truss and Rees-Mogg, if they continue as they have started, could kill the UK’s reputation as a climate leader.
If the green groups are to be thrown out with the anti-growth coalition, both may be happy with the prospect. But Burke warned that it would also be a “betrayal of the British people”, the vast majority of whom – consistently in opinion polls – want to see progress on the climate crisis and who are proud of the UK’s role on the world stage.
“The British public really responded to Cop26, the business community as well, academics – there was a real sense that the UK was taking a world lead on an important issue,” Burke said. “Even the Queen, in her royal way, has made it clear that she thinks something needs to be done. There was a broad sense that we reflected [at Cop26] what kind of country we want to be. This government is now betraying all that.
Add Comment