Connie Hedegaard - EU Commissioner for Climate Action HARDtalk

many as 30 girls over four decades. Now on BBC News it's time for

HARDtalk. What has happened to Europe's big ambition to lead the

world toward a low-carbon, sustainable future? As austerity

bites so doubts intensify about the wisdom of decarbonising the

European economy and financing greener growth in the developing

world. My guests today is the EU Commisioner for Climate Action,

Connie Hedegaard. Art Europe's politician feigning the climate

change challenge? -- facing the Connie Hedegaard, will come to

HARDtalk. How frustrated were you win the latest figures came out and

showed global CO2 emissions had reached another all-time high -

2011 they have reached 24 billion tonnes. It must be usually

frustrating? I was not surprised the emissions globally would

increase. That has been for seen due to what is happening in China,

India and Brazil. It will happen for a number of years steel. But I

was of course frustrated at the fact it was the steepest increase

we have at all quite some time. During a time of Economics looked

him around the world -- economic slowdown? And increasing European

Union - E points to... What it points to his that it is frankly

impossible to imagine there is going to be a way through

international treaty, international negotiations to bring these numbers

down quickly. I think it is doable to get an international framework

around these things. If you asked international business, business

here in the UK there would say please, give us one international

crime would not 100 different systems we have to work with. I

think no-one ever thought that just a have a global deal then nothing

else would have to happen. We have to do things in Europe. Each member

state, in his palate is, individuals will have to do

something. We have launched a campaign in London today on how to

speed up the awareness for individual citizens. It is not just

a question of awareness. People and government in Europe have to except

pain. They have to accept these is difficult and it will come with

challenges and problems. Right now, given the state of the European

economy, frankly, politicians are not interested in talking about the

extra pain that might come with new commitments to emissions reductions

for example? It is partly true. A lot of governments in Europe, if

you are dealing on how to avoid bankruptcy that is what is on top

of your agenda. And, if I may interrupt, you there for look for

the cheapest power source possible. But what I also think is that

people must understand the climate crisis did not solve itself while

we would be seen handling the economic crisis. There is one big

misunderstanding, sometimes politicians, regulators, citizens

have his tendency to believe that just if we continue tomorrow what

we're doing today, then nothing bad will happen - that is very, very

wrong. To continue business as usual also comes with a high-priced

attack. It is not all was as visible - were one to invest in

this kind of technology or initiative - then it looks like a

cost but it also will cost a lot if you do not do anything. If you were

an accountable politician in a nation state you might be saying a

different thing. I said the same thing when I was an elected

official. We can talk about Benjamin Netanyahu in a minute but

if you're George Osborne, had -- we can talk about Denmark. At the time

George Osborne was deeply sceptical. No-one would put the Rhone country

out of business. That is why we still need to have some kind of

international framework. I think we should not look at these in a

narrow way. What put Europe out of business? It would be put out of

business if we lose competitiveness. We are having a rather high wages.

We have brother long holidays compared to competitors. We do not

have long working hours as many competitors. We are not competitive

in some areas. Energy price is one of them. The idea therefore that

you could me to buy more of your energy from offshore, from solar,

which are substantially more expensive than fossil fuel option

right now is not a realistic proposition. If I could finish my

argument - resources are coming up in price, oil would continue to

rise. With respect, gas is not coming up in price and that is why

the British government has committed to building 20 gas-fired

power stations. That is why gas will have to be part of the

Croatian in Europe. You refer to my native country. We went from oil to

gas in the 70s. That is not necessarily bad but in a world

where we need still more food, still more energy, still more water,

still more resources because we are becoming still more people wanting

a share in the good modern life, those who were whistles efficient,

energy-efficient, who can get a lot of output out of little input, they

will stay competitive and that is basically the global race that is

on. It is dangerous if we in Europe we just look at the narrow short-

term cost because it is also a question of should we give these

markets to the Chinese, to the Koreans, to the Brazilians? All,

should we do what we have so far been good at in creating more jobs

and prosperity through Green cards. Hardiman after I'd been within the

climate change discussion is you lose. You lost on the idea that

Europe should take lead in increasing its commitment to

emission reduction from 20% to 30% by 2020. He wanted that to happen

and it is patently not going to happen because he many European

states... Yes, we up. We are doing that through energy efficiency. In

Europe, actually last June, we had a piece of legislation fruit on

energy efficiency. If that is followed by the member states that

will bring us be on the 20%. appreciate that you are or half

last full London Commissioner. I am a realist. If I could just make

your point, of course things are not easy but I'm just trying to

make a point it you are trying to move be on the 20% and wing is that

we're losing this game as the leader, shown in one country or

region in the world who is doing more? Will move beyond Europe in a

moment but it is not really an excuse to say maybe we're not doing

what we should. By agree with that. Let's stick with Europe for a

moment longer. The problem seems to me that whether it is on expanding

your ambitions or binding targets for energy efficiency is, There are

certain countries in Europe which will not play ball with you. I'm

thinking in particularly of pollen. More than 90% of its power comes

from coal-fired power stations. They have said time again we will

not betray down a route which will destroy the economy. On the other

hand, Pollan was one of them as key proponents of the energy efficiency

directive. Anyone with into pond will know that the potential in

doing better in energy efficiency is huge. Isn't it not better for

pollen to be better at energy so that instead of using the domestic

produce coal, plus there are also importing from Russia, to bring

down that kind of cost and also bring down the energy bills of

their citizens. In terms of a mission commitments, you have a

problem. Increasingly, there is a comparison between the problems

you're having and the problems the fiscal Masters I had been within

the eurozone and the mismatch between the economic performance of

northern Europe and southern Europe. It is not a soundbite on energy but

if you look at Denmark and Holland, the interest and realities of those

to energy economies are so different. It is a good parallel. A

parallel of the economic world and challenge us. In the field of

economics, we would not say, this is really difficult so we give up.

We're finding ways to model through and find joint solutions. We have

to do exactly the same money comes to climate. He is it good enough

when muddling through appears to involve a rolling back on a

commitment to the carbonised. If you look at difference that,

massive rise in input Asian into Europe of US coal, if you look at -

massive rise in import into Europe of US coal. Force will feel, carbon

is smack bang in the middle of the agenda? Eyes the a different train.

It is true when you listen to journalists, when you see the

challenge has been getting big decisions through in the political

community, you are right but I also see cannot find an end or a

municipality it is not addressing these. You cannot find a see her in

a major new big business which is not dealing with these. But you're

not dealing with my point. Yes I am. Fossil fuels are art resurgent.

There are a number of European nations extremely interesting

Gedding National gassed. That might not be a problem if they do it in a

safe way. I never said we would come to a point where we will not

be using in the fossil fuel in the near future. It might not be back

replace oil heating with gas heating - that is not in itself

back but you have to consider if that is the only thing. Is that the

only parameter or? Do we also want to keep lead on renewables for the

job reasons and other reason. We need to be more self reliant on

energy. We want to have these renewable resources. If you only at

one criteria, namely get us the cheap as possible and Ng. Then it

will be difficult. -- energy. a tough message trying to tell

Europeans in the midst of economic crisis that there should not look

for the most affordable sources of energy. That is true but it is an

it if we look at it in a very short-term perspective. If you're

in Spain or Manchester, and in you're out of work, I agree it is

OK to look at the short run but politician should look broader. We

have a big challenge in Europe. If we think we can solve the economic

crisis and then look at the social price, and then finally in the end,

then we can come to environment, climate and weasels and then we are

mistaken. The best in is how can we combine all these resources and all

these things. I honestly believe we can combine it. On that point. The

injection of I -- wracking. A lot of people think that is

catastrophic. You, as climate change leader seemed to be

unwilling to condemn nations in Europe which up assuming it. What

we're doing in the commission is analysing, buried very carefully is

the legislation of today enough to take care of some of the

challengers here? What we have seen so far used and there is one area

where it is problematic and that goes with water contamination.

Right now, between different services and the commission, we are

looking at what kind of other environmental rules or requirements

will you have to put up in order to take care that it a country once as

part of the energy mix to have these and that, many to take other

things into consideration. Let me say, if you want me as EU

Commisioner for Climate Action to say before we know anything about

these, we say we do not want it. That would not be a programme or

One of the positive things easier have always said he's said it is

job created. -- always said his. One of the biggest green energy

companies in your country is in terrible economic trouble. 3,000

job cuts announced this year. You look at Germany and one at wind

turbines company has gone bust. It is not the record of an industry

creating jobs. I will not 0.2 challenges in one individual

company. If one company has problems, it does not mean it

cannot work. I look at it from some time. What we can see in Europe is

that the green at sector has managed to be more resilient, job

wise, during the crisis than any other sectors. I think that makes

common sense. Even London, or Manchester or Liverpool, jobs must

day locally. Those and of the jobs will be outsourced to China. Should

we not think about this? Bills for fossil fuels, where we send the

cheque to were ever a guess, maybe if we bring it down at just a

little, invest in a more efficient housing structure or whatever

structure we have in Europe. More efficient production facilities in

a company's when we have to modernise, would that not, in the

end, make a lot of sense? Why is it that a company like that is

consistently losing out to the producers of wind turbines in China

to the point where the existence of the company is in doubt. The most

contracts their last in Denmark was the to another Danish based company.

That was because they decided some years ago not to count too much on

offshore winds. Then it turns out that people are expanding in

offshore winds. I cannot go into any hundred -- an individual

company. It is not so much that they go to Chinese competitors,

they can go to European competitors. We started discussing a little bit

about China. Let's have a look at the international scene we are

dealing with today. Before the Rio summit last June, he said there was

no more time for top. We need to get things right now. It did not

happen in rear. Rio was a disaster. It was not a climate conference.

There were people there who were going to discuss with you?

showed one thing. We had more and more global challenges. We had a

more globalised economy. But unfortunately, we do have strong

global political institutions or ability to agree on things which

ought to agree on. That has been shown it in the talks. It is

extremely, incredibly difficult. I think the world should get its act

together and address what really matters. We spoke before at the

Copenhagen conference when you're representing Dame Mark. You will

one of the key players. That was the similar message you're

delivering them. Nothing has changed. Maybe it is not the way

forward? Do not count on that. I can see in the recent years how we

have managed to move the agenda. All this can come from bottom up.

The companies can do their jobs. Communities can do their jobs. Why

is it that not all companies are just doing what they could do right

now? We have to have a mix of an international framework, key equal

conditions, and then a lot of initiatives where people in the

field start getting their act together. That was my point earlier

on. There has been progress. Not as fast. I read a statement from

similar talks of politicians in China, for example. They still

insist that the fundamental point is the rich world has to understand

that the demands placed upon it will be for the foreseeable future

fundamentally defence and indeed more burdensome than the demands

made on the emerging and developing economies. That divide between rich

and developing is getting wider. It is not being breached. The world of

the 21st century cannot deal with the global challenges of the 21st

century if we continued back like in 1992, to divide the world into

developing parts, including China, that will only have to commit in a

voluntary way. That was a big step forward last GANT last

international climate conference. We said no, the future, all of us

all have to be equally, legally bound. We have to be bound by the

same rules. We have to do different things, of course. Nothing has

happened. It was progress we have not seen in 50 years. That is the

difference between having my position and your position. Some of

us are fighting for this because we think it is important. It is not me

having a problem with climate, it is humanity. What is interesting

about your position, you have chosen to be very outspoken about

the Americans have recently. You have said things like this, I am

shocked that the political debate in the US is so far away from the

scientific facts. That may antagonise Americans. Is it wise,

as any European, to wade into the debate and tell them they are one

million miles away from scientific fact? It does not change the fact

that it is read for a European to see that there is this and tie

scientific approach in the public domain in the US. That is their

problem. We as politicians, we cannot say I feel like doing this.

It is about complex issues. We also have to include, in a decision-

making, the combined knowledge we have. We have to base decisions on

science. I think that is a valid point two. We cannot skip all the

signs. It is a question on how you finesse the politics of this. The

polls are pretty tight. It is possible there maybe a President

Mitt Romney. You will be faced with having to work with the Americas to

try to get his global deal. I have been working with the Obama

administration. We will see what the Americans will elect on 6th

November. Europe will work with forever but maybe. Europe will work

with a deep sense of foreboding where the American debate is.

Americans or share that view. We had a responsibility in the 21st

century. We must take care that we did not reject issues where a big

block of science tells us you should at least know this. This is

what you have to deal with. You cannot refuse to see the reality.

final thought - Europe committed to providing hundreds of billions of

dollars over the years to 2020 to develop countries. Where is the