Browse content similar to Chris Huhne - UK Secretary of State for Climate Change. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Line | From | To | |
---|---|---|---|
year's presidential elections. Here on BBC it is time for idle. And -- | :00:07. | :00:17. | |
:00:17. | :00:19. | ||
heart talk. -- HARDtalk. Nothing less than a global deal will be | :00:19. | :00:25. | |
good enough to tackle global warming. That is the view of | :00:25. | :00:29. | |
British Energy Secretary Chris Huhne. But when he leaves for the | :00:29. | :00:32. | |
climate change conference in South Africa he will struggle to find | :00:32. | :00:37. | |
other countries to agree with him. The idea of the world signing up to | :00:37. | :00:43. | |
another treaty like Kyoto is losing support rather than Dani it. So | :00:43. | :00:50. | |
what should happen next? How much does -- how does the world cut its | :00:50. | :01:00. | |
:01:00. | :01:06. | ||
greenhouse gas emissions. -- gas emissions? Chris Huhne, will come | :01:06. | :01:10. | |
too HARDtalk. You have said your ambition at Durban is a global deal | :01:10. | :01:15. | |
because nothing less than that will be good enough. Do you really mean | :01:15. | :01:21. | |
that? Yes. I do not mean we will finalise a global deal. That is not | :01:21. | :01:29. | |
possible. But we need it are global legally binding agreement. Because | :01:29. | :01:37. | |
no quibble -- serious global problem, whether or environmental | :01:37. | :01:44. | |
or of a defence nature, has ever been left to voluntary pledges. It | :01:45. | :01:51. | |
is not realistic. Anything that involves the serious long haul of | :01:51. | :01:55. | |
major change in the way we power our economies with all be vested | :01:55. | :02:02. | |
interest in fault requires a legally-binding global steel so we | :02:02. | :02:06. | |
are all assured we are travelling at the same pace, each doing our | :02:06. | :02:12. | |
bit in different ways, because the developing world has to be taken | :02:12. | :02:17. | |
account of, the developed world can do more, but we must do it together. | :02:17. | :02:21. | |
But the problem is that the only do we have had on climate change that | :02:21. | :02:26. | |
is legally binding expires next year and instead of gaining friends | :02:26. | :02:32. | |
it has lost them. Canada will not survive the last you stop river you | :02:32. | :02:36. | |
are absolutely right that key a chair is the only game in town at | :02:36. | :02:42. | |
the moment. Obviously we would like to see an extension. We would like | :02:42. | :02:47. | |
to see everybody sign up to it. But that is unlikely because we have | :02:47. | :02:53. | |
Russia, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Canada expressing | :02:53. | :02:58. | |
scepticism about a second commitment period. As far as | :02:58. | :03:04. | |
binding commitments come, it would be a European treaty covering at | :03:04. | :03:12. | |
best about 15% of global emissions. And indeed Europe's own legal | :03:12. | :03:17. | |
emissions limits are tighter than that. So it would not work. What | :03:17. | :03:25. | |
can you get? We can get a clear commitment to a second period of | :03:25. | :03:29. | |
care to, but it must be in the context of an overall commitment by | :03:29. | :03:35. | |
all parties including some of the really big emitters for that have | :03:35. | :03:41. | |
been coming up recently, for example China, to a global deal, | :03:41. | :03:46. | |
not signed it to open but a commitment to get one by 2015 so we | :03:46. | :03:51. | |
do what the science tells us is essential for us to do, which is to | :03:51. | :03:59. | |
get global carbon emissions down by 2020. If we do not do that we will | :03:59. | :04:02. | |
not hold global warming and will have really unpleasant climate | :04:02. | :04:07. | |
change to deal with. So the ambition is to a for 2015. All | :04:07. | :04:13. | |
those people who have not signed it trickier to go like America, you | :04:13. | :04:19. | |
what been signed up in 2015? That would mean by the time ratification, | :04:19. | :04:27. | |
and this is assuming you can get it, you are not talking about a deal in | :04:27. | :04:33. | |
place until 2020? The deal must get carbon emissions down by 2020 | :04:33. | :04:39. | |
because that is what these sides is telling us. Ratified and in place, | :04:39. | :04:47. | |
making sure we deliver on serious promises by Twenty20. That is the | :04:47. | :04:52. | |
starting-point? Hopefully it will be earlier than that. But Beazer | :04:52. | :04:56. | |
the absolute deadlines, the points at which we know if we have not | :04:56. | :05:01. | |
delivered by then we will have major global problems in which | :05:01. | :05:06. | |
vulnerable people in the developing world, B Small Island States, those | :05:06. | :05:13. | |
who are River cultures, will have enormous problems. So we must deal | :05:13. | :05:23. | |
:05:23. | :05:24. | ||
with this issue quickly. One of the aims is to try to limit global | :05:24. | :05:30. | |
warming to two degrees above 1990 levels. If you go over to graze the | :05:30. | :05:36. | |
site suggests you will get catastrophic results. This will be | :05:36. | :05:41. | |
irreversible. You have the Chief Economist at the International | :05:41. | :05:47. | |
Energy Agency saying he is worried. If we do not changed direction now | :05:47. | :05:51. | |
the door will be close forever. He claims it must happen sooner than | :05:51. | :05:58. | |
that. Obviously science is not totally precise on something as | :05:58. | :06:03. | |
long-standing as climate change. But the advice that I have had | :06:03. | :06:07. | |
clearly from outside to us is we must deliver in this period with | :06:07. | :06:14. | |
carbon emissions globally coming down by 2020. It is a big ask but | :06:14. | :06:19. | |
it does mean a lot of change for many people between now and then | :06:19. | :06:24. | |
stop what the problem with fat, the reason it is a big ask, is that at | :06:24. | :06:31. | |
the moment existing infrastructure, every extra building or power plant, | :06:31. | :06:38. | |
accounts for 80% of carbon dioxide. So you only have that 20% left over | :06:38. | :06:44. | |
to allow for reform. The International Energy Agency reckons | :06:44. | :06:49. | |
that by 2015 it will account for 90% off carbon emissions. The room | :06:49. | :06:55. | |
for manoeuvre is becoming more limited it and will close can baby | :06:55. | :07:04. | |
by 27 chain. A lot of countries are doing what we're doing. We are | :07:04. | :07:11. | |
moving towards a low carbon power sector. Within the UK we have in | :07:11. | :07:15. | |
place a policy which will give legislative effect next year, which | :07:15. | :07:20. | |
will encourage the replacement of much of the electricity generating | :07:20. | :07:25. | |
assets that are coming off-line by low carbon generators. Increasingly | :07:25. | :07:33. | |
we must do that. But you are right, if we don't, the more we put into | :07:33. | :07:38. | |
all technologies which are bigger metres, the more we will waste a | :07:38. | :07:44. | |
lot of capital. We have seen that in the past. It is not a good idea, | :07:44. | :07:49. | |
but what we have had in the development of world economies is | :07:49. | :07:54. | |
enormous investment in technologies which quickly look out of date. So | :07:54. | :07:59. | |
you get vintages of technology which take time to change. But we | :07:59. | :08:04. | |
must move quickly. We are still building vintage? We are in parts | :08:04. | :08:14. | |
:08:14. | :08:15. | ||
of the world. When we build cold or -- call-powered power stations or | :08:15. | :08:21. | |
gas-powered stations, we must build technologies that can scrub carbon | :08:21. | :08:26. | |
consequences. If we have clean coal and gas through carbon catcher and | :08:26. | :08:31. | |
storage we can get to the situation where we can use fossil fuel safely | :08:31. | :08:36. | |
without emitting carbon but we are not there yet. What our way we | :08:36. | :08:41. | |
playing with questioner what happens if we get to more than 2%? | :08:41. | :08:46. | |
We are looking at a world which becomes enormously more dangerous | :08:46. | :08:53. | |
for a large number of people. Especially in low-lying countries | :08:53. | :08:59. | |
new VC, those who are relying for example on freshwater which is fed | :08:59. | :09:05. | |
by glaziers, we are looking at potential for substantial rises in | :09:06. | :09:12. | |
sea level. As the world warms up one thing that will happen is there | :09:12. | :09:16. | |
will be greater capacity for war may air to hold moisture. As you | :09:16. | :09:22. | |
hold more moister you get more precipitation, big storms, heavy | :09:22. | :09:28. | |
rainfall. All of that has very substantial economic costs. He can | :09:28. | :09:34. | |
destroy crops, destroy livelihoods, create Migration on a scale we have | :09:34. | :09:40. | |
not seen before. All of these problems will be difficult. | :09:40. | :09:45. | |
countries like the United States get that? Do they get the scale of | :09:45. | :09:50. | |
the problem and the urgency? At the United States is an open society | :09:50. | :09:56. | |
and has many people who do not get it under a lot you do get it. The | :09:56. | :10:01. | |
American scientific community is one of the most advanced and the | :10:01. | :10:07. | |
world in research on climate change. Along with our own Royal Society in | :10:07. | :10:12. | |
the United Kingdom and all of the other leading scientific | :10:12. | :10:16. | |
institutions, we see it as a major problem. But are their conclusions | :10:16. | :10:21. | |
different? You say the scale of a problem means nothing less than a | :10:21. | :10:27. | |
global deal? The Administration has recognised in the past that we must | :10:27. | :10:32. | |
work towards a global deal. The key issue for Durban in terms of | :10:32. | :10:36. | |
whether we are committed to a global deal as a community, is | :10:36. | :10:41. | |
whether or not there is a real sign of movement from the leading | :10:41. | :10:47. | |
developing countries. The United States will sign up if China signed | :10:48. | :10:54. | |
such? If China signed some, a lot of the problems has been a deadlock | :10:54. | :10:59. | |
between the United States and China, and if China news and there are | :10:59. | :11:05. | |
reasons why China may move, I do not say it is going to happen with | :11:05. | :11:11. | |
Chinese leadership change coming up, but if China does move it will be | :11:11. | :11:15. | |
very hard for a Bubba administration to not also make a | :11:15. | :11:21. | |
commitment to that overarching deal by 2015. Then we will know what we | :11:22. | :11:26. | |
are aiming at. That will be an important step forward because we | :11:26. | :11:32. | |
will aim at a single, over arching deal. But you have countries like | :11:32. | :11:36. | |
China catching up. Countries that are not worried about the next | :11:36. | :11:40. | |
generation but are worried about next year or next week because | :11:40. | :11:45. | |
their economy is such that people are worried about jobs and basic | :11:45. | :11:51. | |
survival now rather than the future. Of course. That is why there is no | :11:51. | :11:55. | |
contradiction between what we need to power away out of this deep | :11:56. | :12:01. | |
recession in the developed world and this whole agenda of replacing | :12:01. | :12:06. | |
much of owl of infrastructure and replacing much of our high carbon | :12:06. | :12:12. | |
electricity generation. For example in the UK we will be spending | :12:12. | :12:16. | |
double what we normally spend in a business cycle on replacing | :12:16. | :12:22. | |
electricity generation plant with new low-carbon plant. That will | :12:22. | :12:27. | |
help the recovery, bring green growth and create jobs. You have a | :12:27. | :12:34. | |
problem. You see no conflict. This government of which you are part of | :12:34. | :12:38. | |
the Coalition came in with the Prime Minister saying it would be | :12:38. | :12:44. | |
the greenest government ever. And yet be have the Chancellor, George | :12:44. | :12:48. | |
Osborne, saying in his Autumn Statement to kick-start the economy, | :12:49. | :12:52. | |
if we burden businesses with endless environmental goals however | :12:52. | :12:57. | |
worthy then not only will they not achieve those goals but businesses | :12:57. | :13:02. | |
will file, jobs will be lost and the country will be poorer. He said | :13:02. | :13:07. | |
earlier this year we have to resolve that we are going to cut | :13:07. | :13:13. | |
out carbon commissions -- emissions no slot, but no faster than our | :13:13. | :13:18. | |
fellow country's. When we adopted the 4th carbon budget, the most | :13:18. | :13:22. | |
ambitious goal that any leading developed country has adopted so | :13:22. | :13:28. | |
far, we said it that for that part of our economy that is | :13:28. | :13:32. | |
internationally competitive, the tradable sector, it must move in | :13:33. | :13:37. | |
line with what happens with our trading partners in the European | :13:37. | :13:42. | |
Union. What we are doing with the whole economy is try to move across | :13:42. | :13:50. | |
to a world where we catch of the EU real uses, the real cost of carbon | :13:50. | :13:54. | |
emissions in the point of electricity generation. But that | :13:54. | :14:00. | |
carbon budget was a compromise, and there was a rout in Cabinet, you | :14:00. | :14:04. | |
got it through but only because you excepted this idea that they would | :14:04. | :14:09. | |
be a review, which is why the committee said there was an | :14:09. | :14:16. | |
inconsistency in the Government's position. There is the possibility | :14:16. | :14:26. | |
:14:26. | :14:28. | ||
of overturning that can be done in just free use. -- just three years. | :14:28. | :14:33. | |
I do not accept that. All through history you have had government | :14:33. | :14:36. | |
that tried to set up the object but realise they can only go so far | :14:36. | :14:46. | |
:14:46. | :14:50. | ||
without the rest of the world going Back in the bad old days of | :14:50. | :14:53. | |
communism you argued that you could not have communism almost everyone | :14:53. | :15:03. | |
was communism. You cut solar subsidies, you shelved projects, | :15:03. | :15:09. | |
scrapped the Sustainable Development Commission. Most of | :15:09. | :15:12. | |
those things that you have suggested have not actually | :15:12. | :15:18. | |
happened. The last of fighting against them. Carbon catch and | :15:18. | :15:25. | |
storage, we have a strong commitment. The one project we have | :15:25. | :15:35. | |
:15:35. | :15:36. | ||
to go ahead with was an organic. We had a insufficient budget. Everyone | :15:36. | :15:41. | |
came away knowing that we could build a car then catch a storage | :15:41. | :15:47. | |
plant for under budget. What about solar subsidies? All we have done | :15:47. | :15:51. | |
is reduced the solar subsidies in line with the very dramatic fall in | :15:51. | :16:00. | |
the cost of solar panels. We're paying exactly the same. | :16:00. | :16:07. | |
explained that you have a policy that would include a feed in power. | :16:07. | :16:15. | |
We still have that. The feed and Parrott has -- is still there. | :16:15. | :16:20. | |
announced it would be halved. is because the cost of the panels | :16:20. | :16:25. | |
have half. If you go on paying the same subsidy and the cost of what | :16:25. | :16:29. | |
you are subsidising has gone down you massively -- up you massively | :16:29. | :16:34. | |
increased the rate of return to people doing it. But you are | :16:34. | :16:39. | |
determined to pursue that despite the consultation is not going for | :16:39. | :16:44. | |
ten days beyond that. That is not true. We're committed not to change | :16:45. | :16:49. | |
it before April. That is the exact situation. Wind for the proposals | :16:49. | :16:54. | |
up there. All we have done is move the carrots in line with the | :16:54. | :17:04. | |
:17:04. | :17:05. | ||
falling cost of solar panels. -- Harrods. Many others will also cut | :17:05. | :17:10. | |
the subsidies because there is no point. You do not pay more than you | :17:10. | :17:20. | |
:17:20. | :17:25. | ||
need to. You do not want to pay more than you have to. Those in the | :17:25. | :17:28. | |
industry say that the government has put a lot of effort into | :17:28. | :17:35. | |
building up the industry and has suddenly pull the redoubt. They | :17:35. | :17:44. | |
make the point that you were talking about solar power lock -- | :17:44. | :17:48. | |
panels will be causing the loss of jobs. We'll be seeing the result of | :17:48. | :17:58. | |
:17:58. | :17:59. | ||
that. We did so for a large-scale project about six months ago. The | :17:59. | :18:05. | |
industry said that that this was pulling the rug out of the industry. | :18:05. | :18:12. | |
But they have been growing ever since. All people involved in the | :18:12. | :18:19. | |
business might to be able to give extra subsidies if they can. It is | :18:19. | :18:25. | |
my job to make sure that we do not pay more than we need to. We want | :18:25. | :18:32. | |
it transition towards a low carbon economy. It feeds into this idea of | :18:32. | :18:42. | |
:18:42. | :18:43. | ||
you being untrustworthy of green ideas. Inconsistent. We had a | :18:43. | :18:47. | |
review by a man who looked at disclaimer about the government | :18:47. | :18:52. | |
been the greenest Aaron -- ever that said it was vanishing. He | :18:52. | :18:58. | |
looked at 75 policies and a sauna progress. If you look at the | :18:58. | :19:08. | |
:19:08. | :19:09. | ||
history of climate change we have had dramatic progress. We have got | :19:09. | :19:16. | |
a new energy act which is pioneering absolutely new systems | :19:16. | :19:20. | |
that make sure we get fundamental energy saving in a household. Look | :19:20. | :19:29. | |
at what we have done with a renewal falls. We want to get greater | :19:29. | :19:39. | |
:19:39. | :19:40. | ||
certainty. Are you disappointed? You have had to sit alongside a | :19:40. | :19:49. | |
Chancellor who is saying what Greenpeace called a polluter's | :19:49. | :19:57. | |
charter. I do not agree with that. If you want to make the transition | :19:57. | :20:06. | |
there is no point for an industry like aluminium were 42% of the cost | :20:06. | :20:09. | |
is electricity, forcing it to relocate from the UK to somewhere | :20:09. | :20:15. | |
else where it would be polluting in another ban it. There is a balance | :20:15. | :20:22. | |
to be struck. Looking at the Chancellor, this is the Chancellor | :20:22. | :20:29. | |
who introduced the current price for. Using the European Union's | :20:29. | :20:35. | |
emissions trading system is not giving a strong enough signal. | :20:35. | :20:44. | |
We're going to have a national carbon price. He said in his | :20:44. | :20:47. | |
speech... When you talked about curmudgeons, you are not talking | :20:47. | :20:54. | |
about him. I was not. I was talking in that the criticism we were | :20:54. | :20:59. | |
getting from some of the right-wing press. They believe we're in a | :20:59. | :21:07. | |
world where we can rely on low fossil fuel prices. This is loading | :21:07. | :21:15. | |
costs on to people. What we do know is that British households will end | :21:15. | :21:22. | |
up saving money on their energy bill as the raw results about | :21:22. | :21:32. | |
:21:32. | :21:33. | ||
policies. What they can take responsibility for is what the | :21:33. | :21:38. | |
Government does to try and move this away from the vulnerability to | :21:38. | :21:47. | |
does bigger fossil fuel price increase. That is what we're doing. | :21:48. | :21:52. | |
When you look back at the last 18 months, here you are, Liberal | :21:52. | :22:02. | |
Democrat in a coalition government. I am sure it is uneasy at times. | :22:02. | :22:12. | |
:22:12. | :22:13. | ||
You yourself since he took on the job that you have, you have a very | :22:13. | :22:20. | |
big public separation from your wife. You also want to know if she | :22:20. | :22:30. | |
:22:30. | :22:30. | ||
is going to bring a prosecution against you. Given all that and the | :22:30. | :22:35. | |
job that you do whether there aren't times we have just bought | :22:35. | :22:40. | |
maybe I should just packet. If you cannot stand the heat, get out of | :22:40. | :22:47. | |
the kitchen. I take enormous privilege to be able to do | :22:47. | :22:52. | |
something about the environment. And passionate about making sure | :22:52. | :23:02. | |
:23:02. | :23:03. | ||
that we push this agenda seriously. We have to show that we are going | :23:03. | :23:07. | |
to be the greenest government ever. There will always be people out | :23:07. | :23:12. | |
there who will be greener than Dow and say that we can go even further | :23:12. | :23:20. | |
and faster, fear reality is that we have real achievements. That is an | :23:20. | :23:30. | |
enormous privilege. There is another challenge which is your | :23:30. | :23:37. | |
party. It has suffered as a result of being a Green government. I | :23:37. | :23:43. | |
wonder if you have ambitions to lead the party. It may be a shadow | :23:43. | :23:49. | |
of what it once was. My ambition is to make sure we do what we promised | :23:49. | :23:59. | |
:23:59. | :24:01. | ||
we would do. To be the greenest government ever. I'm absolutely | :24:01. | :24:06. | |
confident that when it comes to the next generation we will put the | :24:06. | :24:13. | |
track record in making tough decisions, actually able to make | :24:13. | :24:23. | |
:24:23. | :24:25. | ||
sure that those decisions are fair. I think people turn around to that | :24:25. | :24:32. |