Ernest Moniz - US Energy Secretary, 2013 - Jan 2017 HARDtalk


Ernest Moniz - US Energy Secretary, 2013 - Jan 2017

Similar Content

Browse content similar to Ernest Moniz - US Energy Secretary, 2013 - Jan 2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

her father on his tour through Asia.

Stay with us here on BBC World News.

0:00:000:00:01

-- several miles from the scene.

0:00:010:00:06

Now, it is time for HARDtalk.

0:00:060:00:12

Welcome to HARDtalk. I'm Stephen

Sackur. It's hard to imagine two men

0:00:120:00:18

more different in temperament and

global outlook than Barack Obama and

0:00:180:00:23

Donald Trump. No surprise, then,

that the current president is intent

0:00:230:00:31

on dismantling their predecessor's

legacy.

0:00:310:00:41

My guest today is Ernest

Moniz, energy secretary

0:00:410:00:43

in the Obama administration

and a key figure in two landmark

0:00:430:00:46

commitments - the Iran nuclear deal

and the Paris climate change accord.

0:00:460:00:52

So, how significant will

Donald Trump's U-turns prove to be?

0:00:520:00:56

Ernest Moniz, welcome to hard top.

Pleasure. -- HARDtalk.

How hard is

0:01:160:01:26

it to see your hard work being

steadily dismantled by Donald Trump?

0:01:260:01:34

Obviously, it is, shall we say,

disappointing, to say it in a very

0:01:340:01:38

temperate way. It mainly because I

think that tremendous opportunities

0:01:380:01:43

for moving forward into United

States, with our friends or allies,

0:01:430:01:49

obviously the UK, prominent among

those, on such important issues.

0:01:490:01:54

Basically, the whole range of global

threats from climate change risks to

0:01:540:02:01

nuclear security and these were

opportunities hard one in both cases

0:02:010:02:06

helping to forge a very significant

international cooperation Alliance

0:02:060:02:15

is not one of the most troublesome

patterns is the way that many of our

0:02:150:02:20

alliances, many of our friendships

and collaborative opportunities,

0:02:200:02:26

insert of being strengthened are

being weakened.

We will undertake a

0:02:260:02:30

bit of that. I wonder whether it has

given you pause for thought. I mean,

0:02:300:02:35

Donald Trump isn't acting simply on

a whim, he is surrounded by

0:02:350:02:39

advisers. He is driven, one can only

assume, as the president of the

0:02:390:02:44

United States I and the overriding

concern for the United States'

0:02:440:02:51

security interests will stop

starting with the Iran nuclear deal,

0:02:510:02:54

he has real reasons for deciding

that the Obama deal that you were

0:02:540:02:59

such an important part of making,

was actually contrary to America's

0:02:590:03:03

national-security interest.

Well, if

you listen carefully to what he has

0:03:030:03:09

said, what I would point out is,

first of all he has given no,

0:03:090:03:17

neither he nor his administration,

had given no specifics in terms of

0:03:170:03:23

the agreement structure. There are

two issues. One is the suggestion

0:03:230:03:29

that it would have been wonderful to

have had some of these nuclear

0:03:290:03:34

restrictions going on for a longer

period of time.

You say there is no

0:03:340:03:39

substance to his criticisms but

there clearly is. He has pointed out

0:03:390:03:43

to the sunset clauses in the deal

which mean, as far as I can

0:03:430:03:47

understand it, come 2026, Iran's

uranium enrichment programme can be

0:03:470:03:53

given green light, full steam ahead,

let's get on with it.

Not quite.

0:03:530:03:59

Until 2031, there is a severe

restriction on any stockpile they

0:03:590:04:02

have of enriched uranium. There is a

15 year constraint. The main point

0:04:020:04:13

is... Which comparison will we make?

Let's make the comparison to where

0:04:130:04:18

we were and where we will be. Where

we were was Iran could have gone to

0:04:180:04:25

a nuclear weapon in a 2-3 months. We

have extended that to a 10- 15 year

0:04:250:04:31

period.

So it is a bout buying time?

You don't believe that deal will

0:04:310:04:36

change fundamentals are the run's

determination to require -- acquire

0:04:360:04:43

a nuclear weapon? -- Iran.

I think

in 10- 15 years. I want to point

0:04:430:04:49

out, there is a great focus on these

nuclear provisions which are very

0:04:490:04:52

important and very unique and rolled

back their programme dramatically.

0:04:520:04:57

But the key to the agreement of the

verification and transparency

0:04:570:05:03

measures which do not sunset. We

have, for example, their engagement

0:05:030:05:10

in the protocol that allows the

international inspectors to go

0:05:100:05:13

anywhere that looks suspicious.

You're putting a huge amount of

0:05:130:05:20

faith in the nuclear watchdog

situation. -- organisation.

That

0:05:200:05:27

organisation now has tools that they

didn't have before in Iran. It has

0:05:270:05:32

tools, it has nowhere else in the

world, the former head of

0:05:320:05:37

intelligence James Clapper has said

you couldn't say 100% certain, but

0:05:370:05:45

the bar is raised so high that the

risk of getting caught would be too

0:05:450:05:49

enormous. The other thing that is

really the point of the criticism is

0:05:490:05:56

that the deal is not what it was

never intended to be. Namely, a way

0:05:560:06:00

to address has polite and missiles.

-- Hezbollah. Work with our regional

0:06:000:06:10

allies and friends to push back on

those other destabilising

0:06:100:06:13

behaviours.

Right. You see, not just

Donald Trump that called the deal

0:06:130:06:19

the worst deal in American history,

horrible, he said, but America's

0:06:190:06:26

greatest ally in the region, Israel

and Benjamin Netanyahu and and other

0:06:260:06:32

key ally, Saudi Arabia, both leaders

have said the deal is potentially

0:06:320:06:38

disastrous because it allows Iran to

refine and develop it uranium

0:06:380:06:42

enrichment techniques because it

doesn't stop it altogether. Number

0:06:420:06:46

two, it allows the Iranians to

develop their ballistic missile

0:06:460:06:51

technology which they are very

actively doing. And number three, as

0:06:510:06:56

the Prince of Saudi Arabia puts it,

on the day of the sun sets, "My view

0:06:560:07:02

is, Iran will race to developing a

nuclear weapon without anybody

0:07:020:07:07

restricting them further. I come to

the question again, has it not

0:07:070:07:10

giving you any pause, this reaction?

Again, from where we were and would

0:07:100:07:15

be today, we have made tremendous

progress in rolling back their

0:07:150:07:19

programme and very importantly

providing insight. Prince Turkey

0:07:190:07:26

knows very well that measures of

means in terms of understanding of

0:07:260:07:31

what will be going on in a run. --

Acra one. -- Iran. Many believe we

0:07:310:07:43

should stay in it because of the

advantages. You mentioned Benjamin

0:07:430:07:48

Netanyahu. Let's talk about the

former Iran Hawke, one was involved

0:07:480:08:04

in Israeli military actions and he

came out in support of it. You can't

0:08:040:08:10

use the same arguments now as you

could two years ago. This is

0:08:100:08:15

analogous to what Ronald Reagan did

with their Soviet Union. In the face

0:08:150:08:25

of all of the other adversarial

relationships we had. Either way,

0:08:250:08:29

the UK, French and German

governments have all had this as a

0:08:290:08:33

foundation stone. We shouldn't be

sitting here carving, which should

0:08:330:08:37

be working to build off of this

foundation stone as we look forward

0:08:370:08:41

15 years.

On the principle of buying

time is it not wise for Congress to

0:08:410:08:55

put some new clauses or proposed

some new clauses? You used the

0:08:550:09:02

phrase about buying time.

You used

the term buying time.

It is implicit

0:09:020:09:10

on everything you said. Is it not

wise to ramp up the pressure?

0:09:100:09:19

Festival, we are not -- first of

all, we are not simply buying time.

0:09:190:09:26

We have a long period of time in

which they nuclear programme is is

0:09:260:09:33

rolled back. During which time, I

would hope that we could build on

0:09:330:09:37

that foundation and address what

happens down the road, 10- 15 years.

0:09:370:09:44

The transparency, the verification,

I want to emphasise, is the core of

0:09:440:09:51

the agreement. The I want to take

you to North Korea.

--I want to take

0:09:510:09:58

you to North Korea. It seems the

message from Trump on North Korea,

0:09:580:10:05

not entirely unrelated to Iran,

policy over a generation hasn't

0:10:050:10:09

worked. We have tried to work

multilaterally and it hasn't worked

0:10:090:10:15

and clearly, the North Koreans are

developing their weekly weapons

0:10:150:10:20

technology, they are miniaturising,

they are developing ballistic

0:10:200:10:24

missile technology, put them

together and the US is in the firing

0:10:240:10:28

line. Donald Trump has decided to

say, so far and no further. If you

0:10:280:10:33

continue on this path, fire and few

rebuild be the result. If that not

0:10:330:10:38

actually sensible diplomacy?

First

of all, you talk about not having an

0:10:380:10:44

agreement or a policy not working

for a long time. I will come back to

0:10:440:10:48

Korea but let me make one more point

about Iran. There was a deal to be

0:10:480:10:54

had in 2003. That was declined. Iran

went from essentially no centrifuges

0:10:540:11:00

to 20,000 centrifuges. No image

uranium to 20 times. -- times. --

0:11:000:11:14

tons. Sometimes buying time but

putting in place the kinds of

0:11:140:11:18

verification measures, it is

critical. Either way, verification

0:11:180:11:21

for North Korea will be equally

important.

We can't bend too much

0:11:210:11:26

time going back in time. But what we

can consider is right now and North

0:11:260:11:32

Korea and the notion that you have

that Donald Trump is not pursuing a

0:11:320:11:36

sensible course. -- we can't spend

too much time. There must be

0:11:360:11:40

dialogue now. I am saying, well,

they have tried that, many, many

0:11:400:11:46

times. Donald Trump is in essence

threatening something very

0:11:460:11:49

different.

He is using the fear

factor. I believe the piece you are

0:11:490:11:54

to does advocate dialogue. It makes

it clear that the first dialogue is

0:11:540:12:01

with China, South Korea and Japan.

But a different dialogue than what

0:12:010:12:06

we are seeing in the public. A

dialogue that is not simply the

0:12:060:12:10

United States making recommendations

to China for what we want to see

0:12:100:12:14

happen as opposed to a broader

dialogue of the entire security

0:12:140:12:18

context for that region, China,

North Korea, South Korea, Japan. Of

0:12:180:12:25

course, issues like the first

American military posture in the

0:12:250:12:30

region. Should an agreement be

reached is very important to China.

0:12:300:12:34

We have to put on the China are very

much broader set of issues. This is

0:12:340:12:39

a case where the issue of North

Korean nuclear weapons, I believe

0:12:390:12:44

and combined with missiles, can be

eventually resolved only by

0:12:440:12:49

enlarging the discussion to include

the full security context.

Right.

0:12:490:12:54

Well, those words sound great but I

am very mindful of what is actually

0:12:540:12:59

happening on the ground. Every

single day, the North Koreans appear

0:12:590:13:02

more determined to develop a

programme that would threaten allies

0:13:020:13:08

in the region. Here is my question.

You are part of the nuclear threat

0:13:080:13:16

initiative organisation. In your

view, is it inevitable that what

0:13:160:13:21

North Korea is doing today is going

to lead to another very dangerous

0:13:210:13:26

round of nuclear weapons

proliferation in our world?

That is

0:13:260:13:33

certainly a major risk. That is one

of the regions where we are

0:13:330:13:36

concerned about that, especially

since, it is very important. You

0:13:360:13:41

have talked about United States

coming under the range of North

0:13:410:13:45

Korean missiles. That is obviously a

very serious issue. I want to

0:13:450:13:50

emphasise the stop our allies, South

Korea and Japan are a military

0:13:500:13:54

forces, they have already been under

that threat. It is not just about

0:13:540:13:58

the United States. It is also about

tens of millions of people,

0:13:580:14:02

potentially, coming under threat in

South Korea and Japan. That threat

0:14:020:14:06

has been there for a while. And

frankly, South Korea, Seoul has been

0:14:060:14:14

under a huge threat. We need to have

a broader picture of the whole

0:14:140:14:20

security context.

0:14:200:14:24

Let me ask you this, now that you

are out of the administration and

0:14:240:14:28

free to say what you really think

and now you are heading up the

0:14:280:14:32

nuclear initiative organisation, do

you yourself believe that one day,

0:14:320:14:37

the United States should commit not

just the nuclear non-proliferation

0:14:370:14:42

but the abolition, the Nobel Peace

Prize has been given to a group who

0:14:420:14:49

are fundamentally committed to what

has become a US treaty -based notion

0:14:490:14:52

that one day we will get to a point

where all nations sign up to the

0:14:520:14:57

elimination of nuclear weapons. You

believe it's possible to imagine the

0:14:570:15:00

United doing that?

Yes. I think the

vision has to remain a world without

0:15:000:15:05

nuclear weapons. I'm not... Knots

not so naive to think that is

0:15:050:15:11

possible in any short time period,

it will take a long time to get

0:15:110:15:18

there. I hope we can get there.

That

sort of long-term intent, it's a bit

0:15:180:15:25

of a fork hypocrisy isn't it for

parts of the world to lecture people

0:15:250:15:29

who do not have nuclear weapons and

to tell people not to get them. If

0:15:290:15:33

the US can't even prepared to commit

to a long-term abolition, why should

0:15:330:15:37

any other nation...?

The United

States is signatory to the

0:15:370:15:41

non-proliferation Treaty. It is a

different thing. It makes the

0:15:410:15:44

statement. The P5, US, Russia,

China, Britain, France, were singled

0:15:440:15:51

out as nuclear weapons states, the

rest of the world which other

0:15:510:15:57

non-nuclear weapon states, we would

act to help them develop peaceful

0:15:570:16:01

nuclear programmes and we would act

to eliminate nuclear weapons. It is

0:16:010:16:08

a commitment in the

non-proliferation Treaty, it is

0:16:080:16:10

already in the treaty. But to get

the required steps. The idea of just

0:16:100:16:15

talking about the vision, Frank Lee,

is not going to help us with a very,

0:16:150:16:21

very difficult, step-by-step

processes that will take a long time

0:16:210:16:25

to get there. What is the

verification regime for a world

0:16:250:16:29

without nuclear weapons? But the

tough question. It applies to

0:16:290:16:32

everybody. OK? Right now what we

focus on is let's make sure we are

0:16:320:16:39

taking the steps that prevents the

use of a nuclear weapon, that is the

0:16:390:16:45

real risk, and regrettably, I would

say the odds of that happening today

0:16:450:16:48

are higher wobbly since the Cuban

missile crisis.

So which do you lose

0:16:480:16:54

more sleepover, that threat, your

alarm about nuclear proliferation

0:16:540:16:58

and the danger, the real danger you

see is actually a nuclear conflict

0:16:580:17:02

in the world in the not too distant

future, or climate change, the

0:17:020:17:07

rising global temperatures, and the

fact that despite the Paris court,

0:17:070:17:10

it looks as though the International

will to keep temperature rise below

0:17:100:17:15

that two Celsius threshold isn't

going to be effective --a chord.

0:17:150:17:21

Which causes you more loss of sleep?

I bill through a third one in, bio

0:17:210:17:30

security, the possibility of

pandemics including those caused by

0:17:300:17:33

bad actors.

The Ronald Koeman -- are

only so many alarms we can deal

0:17:330:17:40

with.

Are you to give three main

issues though.

But with the climate

0:17:400:17:46

change, he worked very hard with

John Terry and others to get the

0:17:460:17:50

Paris deal and Donald Trump has

walked away from that. And it looks

0:17:500:17:53

like the American public doesn't

care that much that he has walked

0:17:530:17:56

away from it.

First of all I want to

make sure it is understood that what

0:17:560:18:01

has dropped it on June one was

announced the beginning of the

0:18:010:18:04

process to withdraw from the Paris

accord. Formally, it cannot occur...

0:18:040:18:09

Until around the time of his first

administration coming to an end.

0:18:090:18:13

Until the day after the next

presidential election. I don't

0:18:130:18:17

consider it a done deal.

Obviously I

was quite disturbed. But look at the

0:18:170:18:23

facts, whatever he can practically

do about the Paris accord, look at

0:18:230:18:28

what he has done, he has approved

new pipeline projects, massive

0:18:280:18:32

projects, double obviously further

expand fossil fuel exploitation in

0:18:320:18:35

the United States, he has revoked

the clean power plant, he has

0:18:350:18:39

overturned Obama's Arctic cooling

bad, he is reviewing commitment to

0:18:390:18:43

federal investment in clean energy

research and development. All of

0:18:430:18:48

these different levels he has taken

real, practical steps which are the

0:18:480:18:52

first the policies that you end

President Obama were driving.

0:18:520:18:56

Obviously I'm very unhappy about

this but it look at some other

0:18:560:19:01

facts. First of all the United

States is roughly speaking halfway

0:19:010:19:08

towards the Paris goal already. But

happened without these Federal

0:19:080:19:12

climate rules. The states were the

big drivers of this. The governors

0:19:120:19:18

of those states have recommitted the

continuing.

But because of easy wins

0:19:180:19:26

with the conversion from coal to

cheap shale oil and gas.

Cold to gas

0:19:260:19:31

was half, roughly half of the

progress.

And it is low-hanging

0:19:310:19:35

fruit but you have to move forward.

So the clean power plan which is

0:19:350:19:39

being called part of a war on coal

which never existed, but the clean

0:19:390:19:43

power plant would in fact, there is

no doubt, it was lower call's role

0:19:430:19:49

in illicit -- ultraslim production

on that list if there was carbon

0:19:490:19:54

capture in the discussion.

But

Donald Trump's is expanding coal

0:19:540:19:58

production, at least he wants to,

and reducing...

Let's talk about the

0:19:580:20:03

facts on coal, no one is talking

about building a new coal plant with

0:20:030:20:07

or without the clean power plant,

and secondly every projection I've

0:20:070:20:11

seen is that the target of the clean

power plant, 32% reduction in CO2 by

0:20:110:20:16

2030, is coming to be met even

without the clean power plant. Some

0:20:160:20:21

states now will not meet their

targets so there is a lot of

0:20:210:20:25

progress towards the low carbon

future but I would say the

0:20:250:20:29

President's announcement

notwithstanding in the United States

0:20:290:20:31

and globally, we are going to the

same place. There is no going back.

0:20:310:20:37

We are going to a low carbon future.

And that is so deeply held that in

0:20:370:20:42

fact after the President's

announcement, over 1000 businessmen

0:20:420:20:46

made the same statement.

We are

coming forward. International

0:20:460:20:50

scientists have just released a

paper saying the CO2 in the

0:20:500:20:54

atmosphere increased at record speed

last year. You are a respected

0:20:540:20:58

scientist in the field, is it too

late to have any hope of keeping

0:20:580:21:02

global temperatures, global warming

below that significantly below that

0:21:020:21:07

two Celsius threshold?

The threshold

I will not say, it will be tough to

0:21:070:21:13

meet, is it possible, it's possible,

but it will require serious

0:21:130:21:17

concerted action to get there.

Including in my view a pretty

0:21:170:21:22

universal price on carbon. But let

me emphasise to the great goal is a

0:21:220:21:28

very sensible one in terms of

minimising the damage from global

0:21:280:21:31

warming, minimising the degree of

very expensive adaptation in all

0:21:310:21:36

countries will have to do. However,

it is really important is to get as

0:21:360:21:45

far as we can in the carbon

greenhouse gas emissions reduction.

0:21:450:21:48

Because if we don't, we will be way

up the curve in global warming with

0:21:480:21:55

catastrophic impacts if we can't

make two degrees, but the 2.5

0:21:550:21:59

degrees.

I'm not giving up. I'm just

mindful that the current head of the

0:21:590:22:04

EPA, Donald Trump appointees Scott

Pruitt, as it is a belief that

0:22:040:22:08

carbon dioxide is the primary

contributor to global warming my

0:22:080:22:11

last question to you is do you feel

is renowned nuclear physicist,

0:22:110:22:16

scientists, a man who left science

to go into politics in the Federal

0:22:160:22:20

government, do you feel like an

endangered species? In the Donald

0:22:200:22:23

Trump era it seems a man like you

would have no chance of becoming a

0:22:230:22:29

key player in Washington politics.

There is no question I think this

0:22:290:22:33

administration to date at least has

not met the standard in my view for

0:22:330:22:38

putting in those who are

knowledgeable on the science as a

0:22:380:22:41

basis for policy. I do want to,

however, I cannot let this go

0:22:410:22:45

without saying you said Scott Pruitt

cosmic statement, it simply

0:22:450:22:49

incorrect and in fact...

It isn't so

much you want to the dispute whether

0:22:490:22:53

it is correct or not, I want you to

address has something fundamental

0:22:530:22:57

change in US government that

rationality, data, science, matters

0:22:570:23:05

less than it is noted the

generations?

I'm not going to talk

0:23:050:23:10

about generations but I can talk

about the last decade and the answer

0:23:100:23:13

is yes. It is a fact that we are

seeing far less fact driven,

0:23:130:23:20

analytically driven analysis of

policy and I might say that what I

0:23:200:23:24

found personally in the last

administration was full, look, it

0:23:240:23:28

isn't as though the Obama White

House and Congress had a wonderful

0:23:280:23:31

political relationship. Let's face

it, it was quite difficult. Even

0:23:310:23:37

within that when the Department of

energy went forward with policy

0:23:370:23:41

recommendations clearly based on

data analysis, we found a very

0:23:410:23:45

receptive Congress and they in fact,

enacted legislation to put in place

0:23:450:23:49

many of those recommendations. I

think the administration is missing

0:23:490:23:53

and it by not basing their policy on

that and statements of the type that

0:23:530:23:58

you made about carbon and climate

are a good example of an anti- fact

0:23:580:24:03

driven statement. The key is society

will keep moving in that direction

0:24:030:24:09

of low carbon.

We will see. Ernest

Moniz, thank you for being on

0:24:090:24:15

HARDtalk.

My pleasure.

0:24:150:24:19

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS