:00:04. > :00:13.many as 30 girls over four decades. Now on BBC News it's time for
:00:13. > :00:18.HARDtalk. What has happened to Europe's big ambition to lead the
:00:18. > :00:21.world toward a low-carbon, sustainable future? As austerity
:00:21. > :00:23.bites so doubts intensify about the wisdom of decarbonising the
:00:23. > :00:33.European economy and financing greener growth in the developing
:00:33. > :00:35.
:00:35. > :00:41.world. My guests today is the EU Commisioner for Climate Action,
:00:41. > :00:51.Connie Hedegaard. Art Europe's politician feigning the climate
:00:51. > :01:10.
:01:10. > :01:15.change challenge? -- facing the Connie Hedegaard, will come to
:01:15. > :01:23.HARDtalk. How frustrated were you win the latest figures came out and
:01:23. > :01:27.showed global CO2 emissions had reached another all-time high -
:01:27. > :01:33.2011 they have reached 24 billion tonnes. It must be usually
:01:33. > :01:38.frustrating? I was not surprised the emissions globally would
:01:38. > :01:44.increase. That has been for seen due to what is happening in China,
:01:44. > :01:48.India and Brazil. It will happen for a number of years steel. But I
:01:48. > :01:53.was of course frustrated at the fact it was the steepest increase
:01:53. > :02:03.we have at all quite some time. During a time of Economics looked
:02:03. > :02:13.him around the world -- economic slowdown? And increasing European
:02:13. > :02:13.
:02:13. > :02:18.Union - E points to... What it points to his that it is frankly
:02:18. > :02:22.impossible to imagine there is going to be a way through
:02:22. > :02:30.international treaty, international negotiations to bring these numbers
:02:30. > :02:35.down quickly. I think it is doable to get an international framework
:02:35. > :02:40.around these things. If you asked international business, business
:02:40. > :02:43.here in the UK there would say please, give us one international
:02:43. > :02:48.crime would not 100 different systems we have to work with. I
:02:48. > :02:54.think no-one ever thought that just a have a global deal then nothing
:02:54. > :02:57.else would have to happen. We have to do things in Europe. Each member
:02:57. > :03:01.state, in his palate is, individuals will have to do
:03:01. > :03:07.something. We have launched a campaign in London today on how to
:03:07. > :03:12.speed up the awareness for individual citizens. It is not just
:03:12. > :03:16.a question of awareness. People and government in Europe have to except
:03:16. > :03:20.pain. They have to accept these is difficult and it will come with
:03:20. > :03:24.challenges and problems. Right now, given the state of the European
:03:24. > :03:28.economy, frankly, politicians are not interested in talking about the
:03:28. > :03:35.extra pain that might come with new commitments to emissions reductions
:03:35. > :03:39.for example? It is partly true. A lot of governments in Europe, if
:03:39. > :03:45.you are dealing on how to avoid bankruptcy that is what is on top
:03:45. > :03:51.of your agenda. And, if I may interrupt, you there for look for
:03:51. > :03:55.the cheapest power source possible. But what I also think is that
:03:55. > :04:01.people must understand the climate crisis did not solve itself while
:04:01. > :04:05.we would be seen handling the economic crisis. There is one big
:04:05. > :04:10.misunderstanding, sometimes politicians, regulators, citizens
:04:10. > :04:14.have his tendency to believe that just if we continue tomorrow what
:04:14. > :04:20.we're doing today, then nothing bad will happen - that is very, very
:04:20. > :04:26.wrong. To continue business as usual also comes with a high-priced
:04:26. > :04:29.attack. It is not all was as visible - were one to invest in
:04:29. > :04:36.this kind of technology or initiative - then it looks like a
:04:36. > :04:39.cost but it also will cost a lot if you do not do anything. If you were
:04:39. > :04:43.an accountable politician in a nation state you might be saying a
:04:43. > :04:47.different thing. I said the same thing when I was an elected
:04:47. > :04:57.official. We can talk about Benjamin Netanyahu in a minute but
:04:57. > :04:58.
:04:58. > :05:04.if you're George Osborne, had -- we can talk about Denmark. At the time
:05:04. > :05:07.George Osborne was deeply sceptical. No-one would put the Rhone country
:05:07. > :05:12.out of business. That is why we still need to have some kind of
:05:12. > :05:17.international framework. I think we should not look at these in a
:05:17. > :05:25.narrow way. What put Europe out of business? It would be put out of
:05:25. > :05:29.business if we lose competitiveness. We are having a rather high wages.
:05:29. > :05:36.We have brother long holidays compared to competitors. We do not
:05:36. > :05:42.have long working hours as many competitors. We are not competitive
:05:42. > :05:48.in some areas. Energy price is one of them. The idea therefore that
:05:48. > :05:52.you could me to buy more of your energy from offshore, from solar,
:05:52. > :05:57.which are substantially more expensive than fossil fuel option
:05:57. > :06:01.right now is not a realistic proposition. If I could finish my
:06:01. > :06:07.argument - resources are coming up in price, oil would continue to
:06:07. > :06:12.rise. With respect, gas is not coming up in price and that is why
:06:12. > :06:16.the British government has committed to building 20 gas-fired
:06:16. > :06:23.power stations. That is why gas will have to be part of the
:06:23. > :06:27.Croatian in Europe. You refer to my native country. We went from oil to
:06:27. > :06:32.gas in the 70s. That is not necessarily bad but in a world
:06:32. > :06:37.where we need still more food, still more energy, still more water,
:06:37. > :06:42.still more resources because we are becoming still more people wanting
:06:42. > :06:46.a share in the good modern life, those who were whistles efficient,
:06:46. > :06:50.energy-efficient, who can get a lot of output out of little input, they
:06:50. > :06:57.will stay competitive and that is basically the global race that is
:06:57. > :07:01.on. It is dangerous if we in Europe we just look at the narrow short-
:07:01. > :07:06.term cost because it is also a question of should we give these
:07:06. > :07:10.markets to the Chinese, to the Koreans, to the Brazilians? All,
:07:10. > :07:16.should we do what we have so far been good at in creating more jobs
:07:16. > :07:20.and prosperity through Green cards. Hardiman after I'd been within the
:07:20. > :07:24.climate change discussion is you lose. You lost on the idea that
:07:24. > :07:29.Europe should take lead in increasing its commitment to
:07:29. > :07:34.emission reduction from 20% to 30% by 2020. He wanted that to happen
:07:34. > :07:39.and it is patently not going to happen because he many European
:07:39. > :07:46.states... Yes, we up. We are doing that through energy efficiency. In
:07:46. > :07:49.Europe, actually last June, we had a piece of legislation fruit on
:07:49. > :07:56.energy efficiency. If that is followed by the member states that
:07:56. > :08:02.will bring us be on the 20%. appreciate that you are or half
:08:02. > :08:06.last full London Commissioner. I am a realist. If I could just make
:08:06. > :08:11.your point, of course things are not easy but I'm just trying to
:08:11. > :08:15.make a point it you are trying to move be on the 20% and wing is that
:08:15. > :08:20.we're losing this game as the leader, shown in one country or
:08:20. > :08:24.region in the world who is doing more? Will move beyond Europe in a
:08:24. > :08:32.moment but it is not really an excuse to say maybe we're not doing
:08:32. > :08:37.what we should. By agree with that. Let's stick with Europe for a
:08:37. > :08:42.moment longer. The problem seems to me that whether it is on expanding
:08:42. > :08:46.your ambitions or binding targets for energy efficiency is, There are
:08:46. > :08:51.certain countries in Europe which will not play ball with you. I'm
:08:51. > :08:55.thinking in particularly of pollen. More than 90% of its power comes
:08:55. > :09:00.from coal-fired power stations. They have said time again we will
:09:00. > :09:05.not betray down a route which will destroy the economy. On the other
:09:05. > :09:09.hand, Pollan was one of them as key proponents of the energy efficiency
:09:09. > :09:14.directive. Anyone with into pond will know that the potential in
:09:15. > :09:20.doing better in energy efficiency is huge. Isn't it not better for
:09:20. > :09:28.pollen to be better at energy so that instead of using the domestic
:09:28. > :09:32.produce coal, plus there are also importing from Russia, to bring
:09:32. > :09:37.down that kind of cost and also bring down the energy bills of
:09:37. > :09:42.their citizens. In terms of a mission commitments, you have a
:09:42. > :09:45.problem. Increasingly, there is a comparison between the problems
:09:45. > :09:49.you're having and the problems the fiscal Masters I had been within
:09:49. > :09:53.the eurozone and the mismatch between the economic performance of
:09:53. > :09:58.northern Europe and southern Europe. It is not a soundbite on energy but
:09:58. > :10:03.if you look at Denmark and Holland, the interest and realities of those
:10:03. > :10:06.to energy economies are so different. It is a good parallel. A
:10:06. > :10:12.parallel of the economic world and challenge us. In the field of
:10:12. > :10:16.economics, we would not say, this is really difficult so we give up.
:10:17. > :10:22.We're finding ways to model through and find joint solutions. We have
:10:22. > :10:27.to do exactly the same money comes to climate. He is it good enough
:10:27. > :10:30.when muddling through appears to involve a rolling back on a
:10:30. > :10:40.commitment to the carbonised. If you look at difference that,
:10:40. > :10:41.
:10:41. > :10:50.massive rise in input Asian into Europe of US coal, if you look at -
:10:50. > :10:54.massive rise in import into Europe of US coal. Force will feel, carbon
:10:54. > :11:00.is smack bang in the middle of the agenda? Eyes the a different train.
:11:00. > :11:04.It is true when you listen to journalists, when you see the
:11:04. > :11:09.challenge has been getting big decisions through in the political
:11:09. > :11:14.community, you are right but I also see cannot find an end or a
:11:14. > :11:19.municipality it is not addressing these. You cannot find a see her in
:11:19. > :11:26.a major new big business which is not dealing with these. But you're
:11:26. > :11:31.not dealing with my point. Yes I am. Fossil fuels are art resurgent.
:11:31. > :11:38.There are a number of European nations extremely interesting
:11:38. > :11:45.Gedding National gassed. That might not be a problem if they do it in a
:11:45. > :11:50.safe way. I never said we would come to a point where we will not
:11:50. > :11:56.be using in the fossil fuel in the near future. It might not be back
:11:56. > :12:02.replace oil heating with gas heating - that is not in itself
:12:02. > :12:11.back but you have to consider if that is the only thing. Is that the
:12:11. > :12:16.only parameter or? Do we also want to keep lead on renewables for the
:12:16. > :12:24.job reasons and other reason. We need to be more self reliant on
:12:25. > :12:30.energy. We want to have these renewable resources. If you only at
:12:30. > :12:37.one criteria, namely get us the cheap as possible and Ng. Then it
:12:37. > :12:39.will be difficult. -- energy. a tough message trying to tell
:12:39. > :12:45.Europeans in the midst of economic crisis that there should not look
:12:45. > :12:51.for the most affordable sources of energy. That is true but it is an
:12:51. > :12:57.it if we look at it in a very short-term perspective. If you're
:12:57. > :13:02.in Spain or Manchester, and in you're out of work, I agree it is
:13:02. > :13:06.OK to look at the short run but politician should look broader. We
:13:06. > :13:12.have a big challenge in Europe. If we think we can solve the economic
:13:12. > :13:18.crisis and then look at the social price, and then finally in the end,
:13:18. > :13:22.then we can come to environment, climate and weasels and then we are
:13:22. > :13:32.mistaken. The best in is how can we combine all these resources and all
:13:32. > :13:33.
:13:33. > :13:37.these things. I honestly believe we can combine it. On that point. The
:13:38. > :13:42.injection of I -- wracking. A lot of people think that is
:13:42. > :13:46.catastrophic. You, as climate change leader seemed to be
:13:46. > :13:51.unwilling to condemn nations in Europe which up assuming it. What
:13:51. > :13:55.we're doing in the commission is analysing, buried very carefully is
:13:55. > :14:01.the legislation of today enough to take care of some of the
:14:01. > :14:05.challengers here? What we have seen so far used and there is one area
:14:05. > :14:09.where it is problematic and that goes with water contamination.
:14:10. > :14:14.Right now, between different services and the commission, we are
:14:14. > :14:18.looking at what kind of other environmental rules or requirements
:14:19. > :14:24.will you have to put up in order to take care that it a country once as
:14:24. > :14:31.part of the energy mix to have these and that, many to take other
:14:31. > :14:33.things into consideration. Let me say, if you want me as EU
:14:33. > :14:38.Commisioner for Climate Action to say before we know anything about
:14:38. > :14:48.these, we say we do not want it. That would not be a programme or
:14:48. > :14:49.
:14:49. > :14:59.One of the positive things easier have always said he's said it is
:14:59. > :15:01.
:15:01. > :15:07.job created. -- always said his. One of the biggest green energy
:15:07. > :15:13.companies in your country is in terrible economic trouble. 3,000
:15:13. > :15:17.job cuts announced this year. You look at Germany and one at wind
:15:17. > :15:23.turbines company has gone bust. It is not the record of an industry
:15:23. > :15:30.creating jobs. I will not 0.2 challenges in one individual
:15:30. > :15:39.company. If one company has problems, it does not mean it
:15:39. > :15:45.cannot work. I look at it from some time. What we can see in Europe is
:15:45. > :15:51.that the green at sector has managed to be more resilient, job
:15:51. > :16:01.wise, during the crisis than any other sectors. I think that makes
:16:01. > :16:07.common sense. Even London, or Manchester or Liverpool, jobs must
:16:07. > :16:15.day locally. Those and of the jobs will be outsourced to China. Should
:16:15. > :16:19.we not think about this? Bills for fossil fuels, where we send the
:16:19. > :16:23.cheque to were ever a guess, maybe if we bring it down at just a
:16:23. > :16:29.little, invest in a more efficient housing structure or whatever
:16:29. > :16:33.structure we have in Europe. More efficient production facilities in
:16:33. > :16:42.a company's when we have to modernise, would that not, in the
:16:42. > :16:48.end, make a lot of sense? Why is it that a company like that is
:16:48. > :16:54.consistently losing out to the producers of wind turbines in China
:16:54. > :16:59.to the point where the existence of the company is in doubt. The most
:16:59. > :17:06.contracts their last in Denmark was the to another Danish based company.
:17:06. > :17:13.That was because they decided some years ago not to count too much on
:17:13. > :17:17.offshore winds. Then it turns out that people are expanding in
:17:17. > :17:22.offshore winds. I cannot go into any hundred -- an individual
:17:22. > :17:28.company. It is not so much that they go to Chinese competitors,
:17:28. > :17:32.they can go to European competitors. We started discussing a little bit
:17:32. > :17:37.about China. Let's have a look at the international scene we are
:17:37. > :17:42.dealing with today. Before the Rio summit last June, he said there was
:17:42. > :17:49.no more time for top. We need to get things right now. It did not
:17:49. > :17:53.happen in rear. Rio was a disaster. It was not a climate conference.
:17:53. > :17:59.There were people there who were going to discuss with you?
:17:59. > :18:04.showed one thing. We had more and more global challenges. We had a
:18:04. > :18:07.more globalised economy. But unfortunately, we do have strong
:18:07. > :18:17.global political institutions or ability to agree on things which
:18:17. > :18:18.
:18:18. > :18:23.ought to agree on. That has been shown it in the talks. It is
:18:23. > :18:28.extremely, incredibly difficult. I think the world should get its act
:18:28. > :18:33.together and address what really matters. We spoke before at the
:18:33. > :18:37.Copenhagen conference when you're representing Dame Mark. You will
:18:37. > :18:47.one of the key players. That was the similar message you're
:18:47. > :18:47.
:18:47. > :18:54.delivering them. Nothing has changed. Maybe it is not the way
:18:54. > :18:59.forward? Do not count on that. I can see in the recent years how we
:18:59. > :19:05.have managed to move the agenda. All this can come from bottom up.
:19:05. > :19:09.The companies can do their jobs. Communities can do their jobs. Why
:19:09. > :19:16.is it that not all companies are just doing what they could do right
:19:16. > :19:21.now? We have to have a mix of an international framework, key equal
:19:21. > :19:25.conditions, and then a lot of initiatives where people in the
:19:25. > :19:35.field start getting their act together. That was my point earlier
:19:35. > :19:42.
:19:42. > :19:45.on. There has been progress. Not as fast. I read a statement from
:19:45. > :19:50.similar talks of politicians in China, for example. They still
:19:50. > :19:56.insist that the fundamental point is the rich world has to understand
:19:56. > :19:59.that the demands placed upon it will be for the foreseeable future
:19:59. > :20:04.fundamentally defence and indeed more burdensome than the demands
:20:04. > :20:11.made on the emerging and developing economies. That divide between rich
:20:11. > :20:16.and developing is getting wider. It is not being breached. The world of
:20:16. > :20:20.the 21st century cannot deal with the global challenges of the 21st
:20:20. > :20:27.century if we continued back like in 1992, to divide the world into
:20:27. > :20:37.developing parts, including China, that will only have to commit in a
:20:37. > :20:39.
:20:39. > :20:44.voluntary way. That was a big step forward last GANT last
:20:44. > :20:49.international climate conference. We said no, the future, all of us
:20:49. > :20:54.all have to be equally, legally bound. We have to be bound by the
:20:54. > :21:01.same rules. We have to do different things, of course. Nothing has
:21:01. > :21:07.happened. It was progress we have not seen in 50 years. That is the
:21:07. > :21:11.difference between having my position and your position. Some of
:21:11. > :21:17.us are fighting for this because we think it is important. It is not me
:21:17. > :21:21.having a problem with climate, it is humanity. What is interesting
:21:21. > :21:28.about your position, you have chosen to be very outspoken about
:21:28. > :21:32.the Americans have recently. You have said things like this, I am
:21:32. > :21:41.shocked that the political debate in the US is so far away from the
:21:41. > :21:47.scientific facts. That may antagonise Americans. Is it wise,
:21:47. > :21:52.as any European, to wade into the debate and tell them they are one
:21:52. > :21:56.million miles away from scientific fact? It does not change the fact
:21:56. > :22:03.that it is read for a European to see that there is this and tie
:22:03. > :22:09.scientific approach in the public domain in the US. That is their
:22:10. > :22:19.problem. We as politicians, we cannot say I feel like doing this.
:22:19. > :22:24.It is about complex issues. We also have to include, in a decision-
:22:24. > :22:30.making, the combined knowledge we have. We have to base decisions on
:22:30. > :22:37.science. I think that is a valid point two. We cannot skip all the
:22:37. > :22:41.signs. It is a question on how you finesse the politics of this. The
:22:41. > :22:46.polls are pretty tight. It is possible there maybe a President
:22:46. > :22:52.Mitt Romney. You will be faced with having to work with the Americas to
:22:52. > :22:57.try to get his global deal. I have been working with the Obama
:22:57. > :23:05.administration. We will see what the Americans will elect on 6th
:23:05. > :23:12.November. Europe will work with forever but maybe. Europe will work
:23:12. > :23:16.with a deep sense of foreboding where the American debate is.
:23:16. > :23:23.Americans or share that view. We had a responsibility in the 21st
:23:23. > :23:28.century. We must take care that we did not reject issues where a big
:23:28. > :23:33.block of science tells us you should at least know this. This is
:23:33. > :23:38.what you have to deal with. You cannot refuse to see the reality.
:23:38. > :23:46.final thought - Europe committed to providing hundreds of billions of
:23:46. > :23:56.dollars over the years to 2020 to develop countries. Where is the
:23:56. > :24:02.