From the record - Copenhagen

Leanne Wood: Thank you for your statement Minister, and I welcome, in particular, your remarks that, regardless of the fact that no binding agreement was reached, the scientific imperative remains and that the lack of agreement should not deflect us from being as ambitious as possible.

I can see your argument for not focusing on what has not been agreed, but I am sure that you share my bitter disappointment at the eventual outcome of the Copenhagen summit. Many world leaders reacted angrily to the private agreement, which they saw as a stitch-up between the heads of countries that are among the greatest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world.

The problem with the failure to reach agreement at Copenhagen is that we do not have time to lose. The climate science tells us—I know that you are well aware of this—that we must act quickly if we are to avoid catastrophic and irreversible climate change. Some islands are already disappearing underwater, and parts of sub-Saharan Africa are undergoing rapid desertification, forcing people to move, which risks creating conflict over access to resources.

Some world leaders are trying hard to manage these drastic changes, while others preside over a private stitch-up. I am sure that you will agree that the anger over the failure of Copenhagen is understandable and justified. One of the world leaders angered by the failure of Copenhagen is Evo Morales, the President of Bolivia. He denounced industrialised countries for pledging only £10 billion a year to help countries to meet the challenges of climate change while spending trillions to fight unnecessary wars. As a result, Evo Morales is organising an alternative climate conference in April. Would you be prepared to look at what Evo Morales has proposed for this alternative conference, and would you be open to the idea of ensuring that Wales is represented at such an event?

Finally, I have a question about the funding that has been announced to support the coffee planters in the Mbale region of Uganda. I would like assurances from you that none of the money that is to go to what sounds like a worthwhile project will be of any benefit to the Ugandan Government, which is currently in the process of trying to legislate to introduce the death penalty for people who are caught for just being gay. I am sure that that is abhorrent to all of us in the Assembly, so I would be grateful for your assurances on that matter.

Copenhagen fail

The end of the UN climate conference in Copenhagen has ended in disappointment, if not disaster. There's no legally binding agreement and no agreement as to which countries should cut what levels of greenhouse gases.

Leaders of many non-industrialised countries have reacted with anger to the private agreement signed by the heads of some of the world's richest and biggest emitting countries. It's been widely acknowleded that what looks like an accidental deal by the USA, China, India, Brasil and South Africa goes no-where near far enough. So what happens now?

The climate science tells us that we have to shift very quickly if we are to avoid irreversible climate change. Parts of Africa are already turning to desert. People in the UK are at greater risk of flooding. Some islands face disappearing under water. The anger from the leaders of those countries who are already dealing with the consequences of climate change is perfectly understandable. They've been unable to have a say, yet they can see and feel the effects of the richest countries carrying on emitting as we are. This can't be the end of these talks. Failure to reach agreement is not an option.

From the record - prepearing for Copenhagen Climate talks

Assembly Record of proceedings 3rd November 2009
Leanne Wood: Plaid Cymru supports the calls from the environment movement for wealthy industrialised countries to commit to a cut of at least 40 per cent in domestic emissions by 2020. This call is not just about getting the UK Government to agree to such a target, but about persuading other industrialised countries to agree that a 40 per cent cut in emissions is a fair and just approach for the sake of a global deal. If you agree with that call, Minister, there are clear implications for the One Wales Government and the commitment to cut our emissions by 3 per cent per year after 2011. I know that the climate change commission is looking at the feasibility of emission cuts of 3 per cent, 6 per cent and 9 per cent, so I would be grateful to hear whether you think that Wales can commit to cutting emissions by 40 per cent by 2020.

We also support calls for the rich industrialised countries — those of us who have grown relatively rich on the back of fantastically high emissions historically — to provide additional money for non-industrialised countries to grow in a way that does not cause more harm to our planet.

We are all aware that climate change will bring more desertification, floods, droughts and famines. Some countries will need support to cope with the mass movements of people that are bound to arise as a result of that, as well as the finance to green their existing industries. Oxfam has called for an additional 0.7 per cent on top of existing aid commitments. I would be grateful to hear the Welsh Assembly Government’s view on that.

We would also like to see action to reduce the use of large-scale biofuels, as well as action to halt the destruction of the world’s forests. We recognise that we need to make adjustments to our own lifestyles, which help to promote the destruction of those forests. We should be making strong representations to the UK Government, which is the body that has the seat at the top table in Copenhagen. We in Wales should be prepared to make our own share of the cuts.

My final point is that Plaid Cymru is of the view that Wales should have direct representation in Copenhagen. We should have our own seat at that top table, and I would be grateful to hear whether the Minister agrees with that.

Jane Davidson: An awful lot of figures are bandied around in this debate. With regard to some of the early issues regarding the targets, the initial target in the Climate Change Act 2008 was to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 34 per cent by 2020, against a 1990 baseline. There was then a call for a 40 per cent reduction by 2020, against a 1990 baseline. To look at our reductions against a 1990 baseline, greenhouse gas emissions are now 14.7 per cent lower, and carbon dioxide emissions are 9.5 per cent lower, as shown by the figures for 2007 that I announced in September.

The Climate Change Commission for Wales met with the independent Committee on Climate Change, which came to launch its report in Wales on the further action that needs to be taken, and when it should be taken, in the context of the UK Government meeting its 80 per cent target by 2050, it said clearly that our 3 per cent reduction target in relation to our devolved responsibilities was the most ambitious target in the UK; it is over and above the reductions that will come through the EU emissions trading scheme for example — for the large emitters — which will also improve reductions. Therefore, the figures are complex. We are determined to achieve a minimum of a 3 per cent reduction. Further work has been undertaken by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, which is probably the foremost climate change centre in the United Kingdom, in looking at reductions of 3 per cent, 6 per cent and 9 per cent a year, and what those would look like. That work is due to be published before Copenhagen, so we will have a chance to look at that as well.

The Government has always made it clear that the 3 per cent reduction target was a political target; science leads us in a further direction. If every country in the world achieved a 3 per cent reduction, we would not restrict global warming to a 2 per cent rise. Therefore, in a sense, there are major stakes for us all. I am looking at the maximum reductions that can be achieved in our final climate change strategy, which will come out in the early part of the new year.

I agree with you on the relationship with developing countries. One important element of the role that Wales has been given in the nrg4sd, and others, has been our commitment to sustainable development and the ecological footprint. The ecological footprint relates to bringing our share of the Earth’s resources down to our fair share, in the same kind of timescale as in the context of climate change. We have already put more than £0.5 million into our Wales for Africa programme, some of which will contribute towards the territorial approach to climate change, whereby we are one of the 10 pilot regions in the world of the United Nations development programme, and we have a link with the Mbale region of Uganda. That gives us a real opportunity to work on that agenda.