What's important here is the context, which is the drama around the Rwanda scheme and legislation. The Rwanda scheme is a plan to send certain groups of asylum

What's important here is the context, which is the drama around the Rwanda scheme and legislation. The Rwanda scheme is a plan to send certain groups of asylum seekers who arrive in the UK to Rwanda to be processed and then to live. This has been an attempted policy for over a year now, but after a lot of legal wrangling, was eventually blocked by the courts as being unlawful due to issues with Rwanda's asylum system. In response, the British government have written a new law that attempts to prevent a number of legal avenues for blocking future flights to Rwanda, and declares that Rwanda is to legally be considered a safe country. This has been a very controversial proposal for a variety of reasons, ranging from people's distaste with the policy itself, to criticisms of the bill's attempt to circumvent the legal system by preventing legal challenges to be heard, and even to groups of MPs who argue it isn't going far enough, and that it should include more ways of preventing European and international courts from intervening. Yesterday, the bill was voted in for the first time in Parliament (the "second reading"), which is normally just a formality for Government bills, which can then get more deeply scrutinised and amended in later stages before being voted on again. Because of the many competing criticisms of the bill (and particularly because the Government needed to satisfy two groups of their own MPs with conflicting desires), there was some question as to whether the bill would even pass. (This would be a rare event - not unprecedented, but a significant demonstration that the Government now longer can pass legislation and must step down.) As a result, there were a lot of deals being done yesterday, and a lot of people being suddenly called back to Parliament to vote on this, for whom other measures would typically be available. The vote passed, and the bill will eventually be discussed further, probably amended, and then face further votes down the line. In many ways, this is to be expected for a Government with a 40 seat majority - they should not be losing votes like this in general, especially for flagship policies that they are staking their reputation on. However, the fact that the Government seemed so rattled as to pull MPs back from significant other engagements - and arguably far more important engagements - is a sign of the lack of confidence that they had in this legislation. In practice, this was a huge waste - not just in terms of carbon emissions, which, as you point out, will be minimal compared to other situations - but also a waste of opportunities of discussion and negotiation at the conference itself. It clearly shows that the British Government's priorities lie with keeping itself in power, rather than using the UK's influence for more useful, long-term effects. In that sense, pointing at this event is very much pointing at the moon - it demonstrates so much about the current British Government in such a relatively small action.