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