hello, i'm ros atkins. this is outside source. welcome if you're watching in the uk, on the bbc news channel, on pbs in the us and lots of other places on bbc world news. and we are going to start with cop26, because big companies have joined the push for a cleaner climate at the glasgow summit. a50 of the biggest firms are pledging to pull funding away from fossil fuels and put it into renewable energy, and put it into renewable energy, and the uk had this announcement. we are and the uk had this announcement. - are going to move towards making it mandatory for firms to publish a clear, deliverable plan, setting out how they will be carbon eyes and transition to net zero —— to

carbonised. transition to net zero -- to carbonised.— transition to net zero -- to carbonised. ~ , ., ., carbonised. also in the programme, and eace carbonised. also in the programme, and peace in — carbonised. also in the programme, and peace in the _ carbonised. also in the programme, and peace in the uk _ carbonised. also in the programme, and peace in the uk voted _ carbonised. also in the programme, and peace in the uk voted to - carbonised. also in the programme, | and peace in the uk voted to prevent the suspension of amp who broke levering rules. owen patterson abused his position to lobby for two, super sport. mps want to rewrite the rules to change the outcome. —— to lobby for two companies you works for. day four of the climate summit has focused on one major question — how to finance combatting climate change? it's going to take trillions of dollars, and a lot of that will need to come from wealthy nations and big business. and today, we heard pledges from both. first, here's the president of cop26, alok sharma. we need developed countries to deliver on public finance and to unleash the chileans required in private investment —— chileans required. and we have made progress.

today, there is more public and private finance or —— for climate action that ever before. i believe we are on the cusp of a new era, where rich countries put more money on the table to help developing countries, where banks... instead finance the displacement of cold. first, let's look at how big businesses will help. it was announced that more than a00 of the world's biggest finance companies have signed up to a new climate coalition. it's called the glasgow financial alliance for net zero — or gfans. combined, the organisations have assets worth $130 trillion and they've committed to helping hit net zero targets by 2050. in practice, this will mean a lot of loans for renewable energy projects. and banks involved in the coalition will also be expected to pull funding from coal and fossil fuel projects in developed nations.

the initiative is being led by borisjohnson s finance adviser for the conference, former bank of england governor mark carney. make no mistake, the money is here. if the world wants to use it. finance is no longer a mirror that reflects a world that's not doing enough, it's becoming a window through which ambitious climate action can deliver the sustainable future that people all over the world are demanding. it will help and the tragedy of the hurt —— over the horizon. to explain how it will work, here's our economics editor faisal islam. does not necessarily mean all the money will go and subsidise wind farms earned the world, that's not what it means, but it means that when they are making their decisions on allocating loans and capital, these really important financiers, when decisions are made, these are the question that will be asked, and will be... there will be a squeeze,

if you like, on the decisions that are made at this stage. there will be incentives for them to lend their marginal money to a green project and less and less to what is known as brown holdings — that is oil, gas and coal. it does not prohibit it, it does not stop things, but it means in this crucial area, the allocation of capital, that you get allocation of capital, that you get a change in the way that those decisions are made. and they hope that that will mean tangible change, and a —— i know in practice, bank chiefs have had very tough discussions with coal miners and oil drillers about, hang on, you'll spec me to lend money to you very cheaply because you're literally gold mine of cash, generate cash from these types of assets, but actually i now have to ask the question is whether you're gonna be around 20 years' time, so i'm going to charge a lot more money for that loan. so that's we're talking about. it is about

incentives, is about , it is not about prohibitions and a stick, if you like —— it is about carrot. so a big investment plan from big business. but as well as talking about the future, there was plenty of focus today on an existing pledge that is yet to be met. to mobilize $100 billion in climate finance per year by 2020. it was a key pledge from that summit. but as you can see here, it hasn't been met. and in the lead up to cop26, the uk released a financing plan suggesting it won't be met until 2023. that delay has angered developing nations. more than 100 of them released a paper before the conference, saying... here's david ryfisch, a climate policy expert with the ngo germanwatch. we know that they

have not met the 100 billion in that there is a gap, and of course that is a huge issue terms of trust, and trust is the foundation for negotiation. in glasgow, african leaders have been making their case for more to be done in reaching the $100 billion a year target. the bbc�*s peter okwoche spoke to kenya's president uhuru kenyatta. each time hopes are high, but the results are always greatly underwhelming, and it... have they been i in: underwhelming, and it... have they been lying to _ underwhelming, and it... have they been lying to you? _ underwhelming, and it... have they been lying to you? this _ underwhelming, and it... have they been lying to you? this is _ underwhelming, and it... have they been lying to you? this is the - been lying to you? this is the auestion been lying to you? this is the question we _ been lying to you? this is the question we are _ been lying to you? this is the question we are putting - been lying to you? this is the question we are putting to i been lying to you? this is the i question we are putting to them today, which is what we are saying. even before it would be in talking about new commitments, let's see you fulfil those pledges that you have already made and declared to the world. we really expected a lot, especially after paris. kenya, and i

think the developing part of this globe, expected a tremendous amount as a result of the pledges that were made. here we are, almost six years down the road, not a single one of those pledges has actually been met. here's the uk chancellor rishi sunak speaking earlier in glasgow, trying to ease those concerns. i want to speak directly to the developing countries of the world. we know that you have been devastated by the double tragedies of coronavirus and climate change. that's why the g20 is stepping up to provide treatments more swiftly, and it is why we are going to meet the target to provide $100 billion of climate finance to developing countries. and while we know we are not yet meeting it soon enough, we will work closely with developing countries to do more and to reach the target sooner. over the next

five years, we will deliver a total of $500 billion of investments to the countries that need it most. when the money arrives in the hands of poorer nations, it mainly comes via loans. and there's concerns that those could plunge some developing nations into debt. our reality check correspondent chris morris explains. in 2018, one of the last years reaction he had good figures, 7a% of the money given was in loans, which duke have to be paid back. only 20% entrance. at a time in many countries are heavily in debt even more so because of the covid pandemic, this means there have —— they are in almost an impossible position, the un experts say the 100 billion, it is a minimum, it is a floor, not the ceiling was to and i think the rich countries except that. chileans of additional investment is needed to help

—— chileans are needed. re—engineering every single country on the planet in a very short space of time, so it is a revolution and one we are all going up to live through. well, as always, if you want more on the cop26 summit, head to our website. you'll find analysis of all the latest climate pledges and this piece, from our environment analyst roger harrabin. and many otherjournalists too. you can find these at... now, let's look at how one particular company is attempting to meet its targets — shell. it's one of the biggest oil companies in the world. and its boss insists the company is on course to halve emissions over the next decade. he's been speaking to our business editor simon jack at the company's biggest oil refinery in the netherlands. 20 million tonnes of oil a year flow through pernis, the largest refinery in europe. globally, shell has a carbon

footprint the size of russia's. what you see here is predominantly refinery... chief executive ben van beurden said shell's transition to net zero is possible, but it will need the money from its oil and gas business for many years to pay for it. this facility is going to be transformed. we will produce biofuels. we will produce hydrogen over the horizon. all these things can only be done if you actually have a facility to work with, but also if you have the cash to invest with it, and the cash at this point in time comes from our legacy business. but it's not all legacy. shell wants to develop a new oilfield at cambo in the north sea. how does he justify that? so, tojust say, "let's not get oil and gas demand from our own resources that are probably the most advantaged resources, but let's import it from somewhere else probably with a larger carbon footprint," i don't think that is going to contribute, of course not to the balance of payments of the country, but also not to the carbon footprint

of the world. shell plans to spend four times as much on oil and gas as on renewables next year, which is why some doubt they can obey a dutch court order to halve its net emissions by 2030 and eliminate them by 2050. even if you are very generous and assume they get all the elements of carbon capture storage and offsets that they need, they mightjust miss their 2030 targets and they will not be able to deliver on 2050. in fact, they will be increasing emissions till 2030 and still be producing a significant amount of emissions in 2050. van beurden insists shell's own emissions are on track. compared to 2016, which is a reference year, we have reduced emissions already with 17%, and we are on track to get to minus 50% by 2030. that is just going to be measured, it's going to be put on scorecards, and part of my bonus is going to be dependent on us meeting that.

remember, these targets don't include emissions from customers using shell products. that's 90% of the total footprint. this gigantic oil refinery is changing to make less carbon—intensive products. that won't be good or fast enough for some people who would probably like to see it shut down tomorrow, but our lives are still very much entwined with industries like this and, in fact, if you have a pension, you own shares in shell and bp. but there are those who think we should be withdrawing our financial backing for industries like this. butjust selling up and walking away would be a mistake, according to the world's biggest money manager. we can't have that dialogue with companies if we're not invested in them. by being invested in the companies, we have that seat at the table, we engage with them. we can't divest from the world. as powerful as shell is, customers may be more powerful. as long as there is demand forfossilfuels, shell or someone else will supply it. simonjack, bbc news, rotterdam.

here in the uk, a conservative mp who was found to have broken lobbying rules will no longer face immediate suspension after mps voted to look at an overhaul of their disciplinary process. an investigation by the parliamentary standards watchdog had ruled that former minister owen paterson be suspended for six weeks for repeatedly lobbying ministers and officials for two companies which were paying him more than £100,000 a year. after conservative mps voted for a change of disciplinary system, that means his suspension is halted for now. here's our political correspondent iain watson. how much faith do you place in politicians to police themselves? today, the government backed changes which could give mps accused of wrongdoing a new right of appeal. labour say this looks like the government's watering down the system that's supposed to tackle sleaze and could further widen the gulf between politicians and the public. this isn't about playing politics in this place, this is about playing

by the rules. cheering and as we can see, it's one rule for everybody else and one rule for the tory conservatives. when they break the rules, mr speaker, theyjust remake the rules. but borisjohnson insisted the government simply wanted to give mps the same rights as any other people accused of professional wrongdoing. may i respectfully say to her that i believe, instead of playing politics on this issue, which is what they are doing, i think that she needs to consider the procedures of this house in a spirit of fairness? and this is what the row is all about. labour accuse the government of acting to help this man, the former conservative cabinet minister owen paterson. an investigation by the independent parliamentary watchdog found that he'd broken rules on lobbying. a cross—party committee of mps said, as a result, he should be suspended from the house of commons

for 30 days. but that action has now been put on hold while changes to the system are being considered. owen paterson has said that a two—year stressful investigation was a contributory factor in his wife taking her own life. but he's also had other complaints about how the investigation was carried out — that he had no right of appeal, no ability to call witnesses in his defence. so now a committee of conservative mps are looking at making changes accordingly. critics say this shows favouritism and will further undermine public confidence in parliament. if the public believe that we are marking our own homework, our reputation individually and collectively will be tarnished. independence is essential to protect us. reform can only work if it's across the house, and by bringing her amendment today, it looks like we're moving the goalposts. but the government maintain they're not showing owen paterson specialfavours, the issues raised by his case reflect more

widespread concern amongst mps about whether the current anti—sleaze system gives them a fair hearing.