0:00:00 > 0:00:01her father on his tour through Asia. Stay with us here on BBC World News.
0:00:01 > 0:00:06-- several miles from the scene.
0:00:06 > 0:00:12Now, it is time for HARDtalk.
0:00:12 > 0:00:18Welcome to HARDtalk. I'm Stephen Sackur. It's hard to imagine two men
0:00:18 > 0:00:23more different in temperament and global outlook than Barack Obama and
0:00:23 > 0:00:31Donald Trump. No surprise, then, that the current president is intent
0:00:31 > 0:00:41on dismantling their predecessor's legacy.
0:00:41 > 0:00:43My guest today is Ernest Moniz, energy secretary
0:00:43 > 0:00:46in the Obama administration and a key figure in two landmark
0:00:46 > 0:00:52commitments - the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate change accord.
0:00:52 > 0:00:56So, how significant will Donald Trump's U-turns prove to be?
0:01:16 > 0:01:26Ernest Moniz, welcome to hard top. Pleasure. -- HARDtalk.How hard is
0:01:26 > 0:01:34it to see your hard work being steadily dismantled by Donald Trump?
0:01:34 > 0:01:38Obviously, it is, shall we say, disappointing, to say it in a very
0:01:38 > 0:01:43temperate way. It mainly because I think that tremendous opportunities
0:01:43 > 0:01:49for moving forward into United States, with our friends or allies,
0:01:49 > 0:01:54obviously the UK, prominent among those, on such important issues.
0:01:54 > 0:02:01Basically, the whole range of global threats from climate change risks to
0:02:01 > 0:02:06nuclear security and these were opportunities hard one in both cases
0:02:06 > 0:02:15helping to forge a very significant international cooperation Alliance
0:02:15 > 0:02:20is not one of the most troublesome patterns is the way that many of our
0:02:20 > 0:02:26alliances, many of our friendships and collaborative opportunities,
0:02:26 > 0:02:30insert of being strengthened are being weakened.We will undertake a
0:02:30 > 0:02:35bit of that. I wonder whether it has given you pause for thought. I mean,
0:02:35 > 0:02:39Donald Trump isn't acting simply on a whim, he is surrounded by
0:02:39 > 0:02:44advisers. He is driven, one can only assume, as the president of the
0:02:44 > 0:02:51United States I and the overriding concern for the United States'
0:02:51 > 0:02:54security interests will stop starting with the Iran nuclear deal,
0:02:54 > 0:02:59he has real reasons for deciding that the Obama deal that you were
0:02:59 > 0:03:03such an important part of making, was actually contrary to America's
0:03:03 > 0:03:09national-security interest.Well, if you listen carefully to what he has
0:03:09 > 0:03:17said, what I would point out is, first of all he has given no,
0:03:17 > 0:03:23neither he nor his administration, had given no specifics in terms of
0:03:23 > 0:03:29the agreement structure. There are two issues. One is the suggestion
0:03:29 > 0:03:34that it would have been wonderful to have had some of these nuclear
0:03:34 > 0:03:39restrictions going on for a longer period of time.You say there is no
0:03:39 > 0:03:43substance to his criticisms but there clearly is. He has pointed out
0:03:43 > 0:03:47to the sunset clauses in the deal which mean, as far as I can
0:03:47 > 0:03:53understand it, come 2026, Iran's uranium enrichment programme can be
0:03:53 > 0:03:59given green light, full steam ahead, let's get on with it.Not quite.
0:03:59 > 0:04:02Until 2031, there is a severe restriction on any stockpile they
0:04:02 > 0:04:13have of enriched uranium. There is a 15 year constraint. The main point
0:04:13 > 0:04:18is... Which comparison will we make? Let's make the comparison to where
0:04:18 > 0:04:25we were and where we will be. Where we were was Iran could have gone to
0:04:25 > 0:04:31a nuclear weapon in a 2-3 months. We have extended that to a 10- 15 year
0:04:31 > 0:04:36period.So it is a bout buying time? You don't believe that deal will
0:04:36 > 0:04:43change fundamentals are the run's determination to require -- acquire
0:04:43 > 0:04:49a nuclear weapon? -- Iran.I think in 10- 15 years. I want to point
0:04:49 > 0:04:52out, there is a great focus on these nuclear provisions which are very
0:04:52 > 0:04:57important and very unique and rolled back their programme dramatically.
0:04:57 > 0:05:03But the key to the agreement of the verification and transparency
0:05:03 > 0:05:10measures which do not sunset. We have, for example, their engagement
0:05:10 > 0:05:13in the protocol that allows the international inspectors to go
0:05:13 > 0:05:20anywhere that looks suspicious. You're putting a huge amount of
0:05:20 > 0:05:27faith in the nuclear watchdog situation. -- organisation.That
0:05:27 > 0:05:32organisation now has tools that they didn't have before in Iran. It has
0:05:32 > 0:05:37tools, it has nowhere else in the world, the former head of
0:05:37 > 0:05:45intelligence James Clapper has said you couldn't say 100% certain, but
0:05:45 > 0:05:49the bar is raised so high that the risk of getting caught would be too
0:05:49 > 0:05:56enormous. The other thing that is really the point of the criticism is
0:05:56 > 0:06:00that the deal is not what it was never intended to be. Namely, a way
0:06:00 > 0:06:10to address has polite and missiles. -- Hezbollah. Work with our regional
0:06:10 > 0:06:13allies and friends to push back on those other destabilising
0:06:13 > 0:06:19behaviours.Right. You see, not just Donald Trump that called the deal
0:06:19 > 0:06:26the worst deal in American history, horrible, he said, but America's
0:06:26 > 0:06:32greatest ally in the region, Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu and and other
0:06:32 > 0:06:38key ally, Saudi Arabia, both leaders have said the deal is potentially
0:06:38 > 0:06:42disastrous because it allows Iran to refine and develop it uranium
0:06:42 > 0:06:46enrichment techniques because it doesn't stop it altogether. Number
0:06:46 > 0:06:51two, it allows the Iranians to develop their ballistic missile
0:06:51 > 0:06:56technology which they are very actively doing. And number three, as
0:06:56 > 0:07:02the Prince of Saudi Arabia puts it, on the day of the sun sets, "My view
0:07:02 > 0:07:07is, Iran will race to developing a nuclear weapon without anybody
0:07:07 > 0:07:10restricting them further. I come to the question again, has it not
0:07:10 > 0:07:15giving you any pause, this reaction? Again, from where we were and would
0:07:15 > 0:07:19be today, we have made tremendous progress in rolling back their
0:07:19 > 0:07:26programme and very importantly providing insight. Prince Turkey
0:07:26 > 0:07:31knows very well that measures of means in terms of understanding of
0:07:31 > 0:07:43what will be going on in a run. -- Acra one. -- Iran. Many believe we
0:07:43 > 0:07:48should stay in it because of the advantages. You mentioned Benjamin
0:07:48 > 0:08:04Netanyahu. Let's talk about the former Iran Hawke, one was involved
0:08:04 > 0:08:10in Israeli military actions and he came out in support of it. You can't
0:08:10 > 0:08:15use the same arguments now as you could two years ago. This is
0:08:15 > 0:08:25analogous to what Ronald Reagan did with their Soviet Union. In the face
0:08:25 > 0:08:29of all of the other adversarial relationships we had. Either way,
0:08:29 > 0:08:33the UK, French and German governments have all had this as a
0:08:33 > 0:08:37foundation stone. We shouldn't be sitting here carving, which should
0:08:37 > 0:08:41be working to build off of this foundation stone as we look forward
0:08:41 > 0:08:5515 years.On the principle of buying time is it not wise for Congress to
0:08:55 > 0:09:02put some new clauses or proposed some new clauses? You used the
0:09:02 > 0:09:10phrase about buying time.You used the term buying time.It is implicit
0:09:10 > 0:09:19on everything you said. Is it not wise to ramp up the pressure?
0:09:19 > 0:09:26Festival, we are not -- first of all, we are not simply buying time.
0:09:26 > 0:09:33We have a long period of time in which they nuclear programme is is
0:09:33 > 0:09:37rolled back. During which time, I would hope that we could build on
0:09:37 > 0:09:44that foundation and address what happens down the road, 10- 15 years.
0:09:44 > 0:09:51The transparency, the verification, I want to emphasise, is the core of
0:09:51 > 0:09:58the agreement. The I want to take you to North Korea.--I want to take
0:09:58 > 0:10:05you to North Korea. It seems the message from Trump on North Korea,
0:10:05 > 0:10:09not entirely unrelated to Iran, policy over a generation hasn't
0:10:09 > 0:10:15worked. We have tried to work multilaterally and it hasn't worked
0:10:15 > 0:10:20and clearly, the North Koreans are developing their weekly weapons
0:10:20 > 0:10:24technology, they are miniaturising, they are developing ballistic
0:10:24 > 0:10:28missile technology, put them together and the US is in the firing
0:10:28 > 0:10:33line. Donald Trump has decided to say, so far and no further. If you
0:10:33 > 0:10:38continue on this path, fire and few rebuild be the result. If that not
0:10:38 > 0:10:44actually sensible diplomacy?First of all, you talk about not having an
0:10:44 > 0:10:48agreement or a policy not working for a long time. I will come back to
0:10:48 > 0:10:54Korea but let me make one more point about Iran. There was a deal to be
0:10:54 > 0:11:00had in 2003. That was declined. Iran went from essentially no centrifuges
0:11:00 > 0:11:14to 20,000 centrifuges. No image uranium to 20 times. -- times. --
0:11:14 > 0:11:18tons. Sometimes buying time but putting in place the kinds of
0:11:18 > 0:11:21verification measures, it is critical. Either way, verification
0:11:21 > 0:11:26for North Korea will be equally important.We can't bend too much
0:11:26 > 0:11:32time going back in time. But what we can consider is right now and North
0:11:32 > 0:11:36Korea and the notion that you have that Donald Trump is not pursuing a
0:11:36 > 0:11:40sensible course. -- we can't spend too much time. There must be
0:11:40 > 0:11:46dialogue now. I am saying, well, they have tried that, many, many
0:11:46 > 0:11:49times. Donald Trump is in essence threatening something very
0:11:49 > 0:11:54different.He is using the fear factor. I believe the piece you are
0:11:54 > 0:12:01to does advocate dialogue. It makes it clear that the first dialogue is
0:12:01 > 0:12:06with China, South Korea and Japan. But a different dialogue than what
0:12:06 > 0:12:10we are seeing in the public. A dialogue that is not simply the
0:12:10 > 0:12:14United States making recommendations to China for what we want to see
0:12:14 > 0:12:18happen as opposed to a broader dialogue of the entire security
0:12:18 > 0:12:25context for that region, China, North Korea, South Korea, Japan. Of
0:12:25 > 0:12:30course, issues like the first American military posture in the
0:12:30 > 0:12:34region. Should an agreement be reached is very important to China.
0:12:34 > 0:12:39We have to put on the China are very much broader set of issues. This is
0:12:39 > 0:12:44a case where the issue of North Korean nuclear weapons, I believe
0:12:44 > 0:12:49and combined with missiles, can be eventually resolved only by
0:12:49 > 0:12:54enlarging the discussion to include the full security context.Right.
0:12:54 > 0:12:59Well, those words sound great but I am very mindful of what is actually
0:12:59 > 0:13:02happening on the ground. Every single day, the North Koreans appear
0:13:02 > 0:13:08more determined to develop a programme that would threaten allies
0:13:08 > 0:13:16in the region. Here is my question. You are part of the nuclear threat
0:13:16 > 0:13:21initiative organisation. In your view, is it inevitable that what
0:13:21 > 0:13:26North Korea is doing today is going to lead to another very dangerous
0:13:26 > 0:13:33round of nuclear weapons proliferation in our world?That is
0:13:33 > 0:13:36certainly a major risk. That is one of the regions where we are
0:13:36 > 0:13:41concerned about that, especially since, it is very important. You
0:13:41 > 0:13:45have talked about United States coming under the range of North
0:13:45 > 0:13:50Korean missiles. That is obviously a very serious issue. I want to
0:13:50 > 0:13:54emphasise the stop our allies, South Korea and Japan are a military
0:13:54 > 0:13:58forces, they have already been under that threat. It is not just about
0:13:58 > 0:14:02the United States. It is also about tens of millions of people,
0:14:02 > 0:14:06potentially, coming under threat in South Korea and Japan. That threat
0:14:06 > 0:14:14has been there for a while. And frankly, South Korea, Seoul has been
0:14:14 > 0:14:20under a huge threat. We need to have a broader picture of the whole
0:14:20 > 0:14:24security context.
0:14:24 > 0:14:28Let me ask you this, now that you are out of the administration and
0:14:28 > 0:14:32free to say what you really think and now you are heading up the
0:14:32 > 0:14:37nuclear initiative organisation, do you yourself believe that one day,
0:14:37 > 0:14:42the United States should commit not just the nuclear non-proliferation
0:14:42 > 0:14:49but the abolition, the Nobel Peace Prize has been given to a group who
0:14:49 > 0:14:52are fundamentally committed to what has become a US treaty -based notion
0:14:52 > 0:14:57that one day we will get to a point where all nations sign up to the
0:14:57 > 0:15:00elimination of nuclear weapons. You believe it's possible to imagine the
0:15:00 > 0:15:05United doing that?Yes. I think the vision has to remain a world without
0:15:05 > 0:15:11nuclear weapons. I'm not... Knots not so naive to think that is
0:15:11 > 0:15:18possible in any short time period, it will take a long time to get
0:15:18 > 0:15:25there. I hope we can get there.That sort of long-term intent, it's a bit
0:15:25 > 0:15:29of a fork hypocrisy isn't it for parts of the world to lecture people
0:15:29 > 0:15:33who do not have nuclear weapons and to tell people not to get them. If
0:15:33 > 0:15:37the US can't even prepared to commit to a long-term abolition, why should
0:15:37 > 0:15:41any other nation...?The United States is signatory to the
0:15:41 > 0:15:44non-proliferation Treaty. It is a different thing. It makes the
0:15:44 > 0:15:51statement. The P5, US, Russia, China, Britain, France, were singled
0:15:51 > 0:15:57out as nuclear weapons states, the rest of the world which other
0:15:57 > 0:16:01non-nuclear weapon states, we would act to help them develop peaceful
0:16:01 > 0:16:08nuclear programmes and we would act to eliminate nuclear weapons. It is
0:16:08 > 0:16:10a commitment in the non-proliferation Treaty, it is
0:16:10 > 0:16:15already in the treaty. But to get the required steps. The idea of just
0:16:15 > 0:16:21talking about the vision, Frank Lee, is not going to help us with a very,
0:16:21 > 0:16:25very difficult, step-by-step processes that will take a long time
0:16:25 > 0:16:29to get there. What is the verification regime for a world
0:16:29 > 0:16:32without nuclear weapons? But the tough question. It applies to
0:16:32 > 0:16:39everybody. OK? Right now what we focus on is let's make sure we are
0:16:39 > 0:16:45taking the steps that prevents the use of a nuclear weapon, that is the
0:16:45 > 0:16:48real risk, and regrettably, I would say the odds of that happening today
0:16:48 > 0:16:54are higher wobbly since the Cuban missile crisis.So which do you lose
0:16:54 > 0:16:58more sleepover, that threat, your alarm about nuclear proliferation
0:16:58 > 0:17:02and the danger, the real danger you see is actually a nuclear conflict
0:17:02 > 0:17:07in the world in the not too distant future, or climate change, the
0:17:07 > 0:17:10rising global temperatures, and the fact that despite the Paris court,
0:17:10 > 0:17:15it looks as though the International will to keep temperature rise below
0:17:15 > 0:17:21that two Celsius threshold isn't going to be effective --a chord.
0:17:21 > 0:17:30Which causes you more loss of sleep? I bill through a third one in, bio
0:17:30 > 0:17:33security, the possibility of pandemics including those caused by
0:17:33 > 0:17:40bad actors.The Ronald Koeman -- are only so many alarms we can deal
0:17:40 > 0:17:46with.Are you to give three main issues though.But with the climate
0:17:46 > 0:17:50change, he worked very hard with John Terry and others to get the
0:17:50 > 0:17:53Paris deal and Donald Trump has walked away from that. And it looks
0:17:53 > 0:17:56like the American public doesn't care that much that he has walked
0:17:56 > 0:18:01away from it.First of all I want to make sure it is understood that what
0:18:01 > 0:18:04has dropped it on June one was announced the beginning of the
0:18:04 > 0:18:09process to withdraw from the Paris accord. Formally, it cannot occur...
0:18:09 > 0:18:13Until around the time of his first administration coming to an end.
0:18:13 > 0:18:17Until the day after the next presidential election. I don't
0:18:17 > 0:18:23consider it a done deal.Obviously I was quite disturbed. But look at the
0:18:23 > 0:18:28facts, whatever he can practically do about the Paris accord, look at
0:18:28 > 0:18:32what he has done, he has approved new pipeline projects, massive
0:18:32 > 0:18:35projects, double obviously further expand fossil fuel exploitation in
0:18:35 > 0:18:39the United States, he has revoked the clean power plant, he has
0:18:39 > 0:18:43overturned Obama's Arctic cooling bad, he is reviewing commitment to
0:18:43 > 0:18:48federal investment in clean energy research and development. All of
0:18:48 > 0:18:52these different levels he has taken real, practical steps which are the
0:18:52 > 0:18:56first the policies that you end President Obama were driving.
0:18:56 > 0:19:01Obviously I'm very unhappy about this but it look at some other
0:19:01 > 0:19:08facts. First of all the United States is roughly speaking halfway
0:19:08 > 0:19:12towards the Paris goal already. But happened without these Federal
0:19:12 > 0:19:18climate rules. The states were the big drivers of this. The governors
0:19:18 > 0:19:26of those states have recommitted the continuing.But because of easy wins
0:19:26 > 0:19:31with the conversion from coal to cheap shale oil and gas.Cold to gas
0:19:31 > 0:19:35was half, roughly half of the progress.And it is low-hanging
0:19:35 > 0:19:39fruit but you have to move forward. So the clean power plan which is
0:19:39 > 0:19:43being called part of a war on coal which never existed, but the clean
0:19:43 > 0:19:49power plant would in fact, there is no doubt, it was lower call's role
0:19:49 > 0:19:54in illicit -- ultraslim production on that list if there was carbon
0:19:54 > 0:19:58capture in the discussion.But Donald Trump's is expanding coal
0:19:58 > 0:20:03production, at least he wants to, and reducing...Let's talk about the
0:20:03 > 0:20:07facts on coal, no one is talking about building a new coal plant with
0:20:07 > 0:20:11or without the clean power plant, and secondly every projection I've
0:20:11 > 0:20:16seen is that the target of the clean power plant, 32% reduction in CO2 by
0:20:16 > 0:20:212030, is coming to be met even without the clean power plant. Some
0:20:21 > 0:20:25states now will not meet their targets so there is a lot of
0:20:25 > 0:20:29progress towards the low carbon future but I would say the
0:20:29 > 0:20:31President's announcement notwithstanding in the United States
0:20:31 > 0:20:37and globally, we are going to the same place. There is no going back.
0:20:37 > 0:20:42We are going to a low carbon future. And that is so deeply held that in
0:20:42 > 0:20:46fact after the President's announcement, over 1000 businessmen
0:20:46 > 0:20:50made the same statement.We are coming forward. International
0:20:50 > 0:20:54scientists have just released a paper saying the CO2 in the
0:20:54 > 0:20:58atmosphere increased at record speed last year. You are a respected
0:20:58 > 0:21:02scientist in the field, is it too late to have any hope of keeping
0:21:02 > 0:21:07global temperatures, global warming below that significantly below that
0:21:07 > 0:21:13two Celsius threshold?The threshold I will not say, it will be tough to
0:21:13 > 0:21:17meet, is it possible, it's possible, but it will require serious
0:21:17 > 0:21:22concerted action to get there. Including in my view a pretty
0:21:22 > 0:21:28universal price on carbon. But let me emphasise to the great goal is a
0:21:28 > 0:21:31very sensible one in terms of minimising the damage from global
0:21:31 > 0:21:36warming, minimising the degree of very expensive adaptation in all
0:21:36 > 0:21:45countries will have to do. However, it is really important is to get as
0:21:45 > 0:21:48far as we can in the carbon greenhouse gas emissions reduction.
0:21:48 > 0:21:55Because if we don't, we will be way up the curve in global warming with
0:21:55 > 0:21:59catastrophic impacts if we can't make two degrees, but the 2.5
0:21:59 > 0:22:04degrees.I'm not giving up. I'm just mindful that the current head of the
0:22:04 > 0:22:08EPA, Donald Trump appointees Scott Pruitt, as it is a belief that
0:22:08 > 0:22:11carbon dioxide is the primary contributor to global warming my
0:22:11 > 0:22:16last question to you is do you feel is renowned nuclear physicist,
0:22:16 > 0:22:20scientists, a man who left science to go into politics in the Federal
0:22:20 > 0:22:23government, do you feel like an endangered species? In the Donald
0:22:23 > 0:22:29Trump era it seems a man like you would have no chance of becoming a
0:22:29 > 0:22:33key player in Washington politics. There is no question I think this
0:22:33 > 0:22:38administration to date at least has not met the standard in my view for
0:22:38 > 0:22:41putting in those who are knowledgeable on the science as a
0:22:41 > 0:22:45basis for policy. I do want to, however, I cannot let this go
0:22:45 > 0:22:49without saying you said Scott Pruitt cosmic statement, it simply
0:22:49 > 0:22:53incorrect and in fact...It isn't so much you want to the dispute whether
0:22:53 > 0:22:57it is correct or not, I want you to address has something fundamental
0:22:57 > 0:23:05change in US government that rationality, data, science, matters
0:23:05 > 0:23:10less than it is noted the generations?I'm not going to talk
0:23:10 > 0:23:13about generations but I can talk about the last decade and the answer
0:23:13 > 0:23:20is yes. It is a fact that we are seeing far less fact driven,
0:23:20 > 0:23:24analytically driven analysis of policy and I might say that what I
0:23:24 > 0:23:28found personally in the last administration was full, look, it
0:23:28 > 0:23:31isn't as though the Obama White House and Congress had a wonderful
0:23:31 > 0:23:37political relationship. Let's face it, it was quite difficult. Even
0:23:37 > 0:23:41within that when the Department of energy went forward with policy
0:23:41 > 0:23:45recommendations clearly based on data analysis, we found a very
0:23:45 > 0:23:49receptive Congress and they in fact, enacted legislation to put in place
0:23:49 > 0:23:53many of those recommendations. I think the administration is missing
0:23:53 > 0:23:58and it by not basing their policy on that and statements of the type that
0:23:58 > 0:24:03you made about carbon and climate are a good example of an anti- fact
0:24:03 > 0:24:09driven statement. The key is society will keep moving in that direction
0:24:09 > 0:24:15of low carbon.We will see. Ernest Moniz, thank you for being on
0:24:15 > 0:24:19HARDtalk.My pleasure.