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

her father on his tour through Asia.

Stay with us here on BBC World News.

-- several miles from the scene.

Now, it is time for HARDtalk.

Welcome to HARDtalk. I'm Stephen

Sackur. It's hard to imagine two men

more different in temperament and

global outlook than Barack Obama and

Donald Trump. No surprise, then,

that the current president is intent

on dismantling their predecessor's

legacy.

My guest today is Ernest

Moniz, energy secretary

in the Obama administration

and a key figure in two landmark

commitments - the Iran nuclear deal

and the Paris climate change accord.

So, how significant will

Donald Trump's U-turns prove to be?

Ernest Moniz, welcome to hard top.

Pleasure. -- HARDtalk.

How hard is

it to see your hard work being

steadily dismantled by Donald Trump?

Obviously, it is, shall we say,

disappointing, to say it in a very

temperate way. It mainly because I

think that tremendous opportunities

for moving forward into United

States, with our friends or allies,

obviously the UK, prominent among

those, on such important issues.

Basically, the whole range of global

threats from climate change risks to

nuclear security and these were

opportunities hard one in both cases

helping to forge a very significant

international cooperation Alliance

is not one of the most troublesome

patterns is the way that many of our

alliances, many of our friendships

and collaborative opportunities,

insert of being strengthened are

being weakened.

We will undertake a

bit of that. I wonder whether it has

given you pause for thought. I mean,

Donald Trump isn't acting simply on

a whim, he is surrounded by

advisers. He is driven, one can only

assume, as the president of the

United States I and the overriding

concern for the United States'

security interests will stop

starting with the Iran nuclear deal,

he has real reasons for deciding

that the Obama deal that you were

such an important part of making,

was actually contrary to America's

national-security interest.

Well, if

you listen carefully to what he has

said, what I would point out is,

first of all he has given no,

neither he nor his administration,

had given no specifics in terms of

the agreement structure. There are

two issues. One is the suggestion

that it would have been wonderful to

have had some of these nuclear

restrictions going on for a longer

period of time.

You say there is no

substance to his criticisms but

there clearly is. He has pointed out

to the sunset clauses in the deal

which mean, as far as I can

understand it, come 2026, Iran's

uranium enrichment programme can be

given green light, full steam ahead,

let's get on with it.

Not quite.

Until 2031, there is a severe

restriction on any stockpile they

have of enriched uranium. There is a

15 year constraint. The main point

is... Which comparison will we make?

Let's make the comparison to where

we were and where we will be. Where

we were was Iran could have gone to

a nuclear weapon in a 2-3 months. We

have extended that to a 10- 15 year

period.

So it is a bout buying time?

You don't believe that deal will

change fundamentals are the run's

determination to require -- acquire

a nuclear weapon? -- Iran.

I think

in 10- 15 years. I want to point

out, there is a great focus on these

nuclear provisions which are very

important and very unique and rolled

back their programme dramatically.

But the key to the agreement of the

verification and transparency

measures which do not sunset. We

have, for example, their engagement

in the protocol that allows the

international inspectors to go

anywhere that looks suspicious.

You're putting a huge amount of

faith in the nuclear watchdog

situation. -- organisation.

That

organisation now has tools that they

didn't have before in Iran. It has

tools, it has nowhere else in the

world, the former head of

intelligence James Clapper has said

you couldn't say 100% certain, but

the bar is raised so high that the

risk of getting caught would be too

enormous. The other thing that is

really the point of the criticism is

that the deal is not what it was

never intended to be. Namely, a way

to address has polite and missiles.

-- Hezbollah. Work with our regional

allies and friends to push back on

those other destabilising

behaviours.

Right. You see, not just

Donald Trump that called the deal

the worst deal in American history,

horrible, he said, but America's

greatest ally in the region, Israel

and Benjamin Netanyahu and and other

key ally, Saudi Arabia, both leaders

have said the deal is potentially

disastrous because it allows Iran to

refine and develop it uranium

enrichment techniques because it

doesn't stop it altogether. Number

two, it allows the Iranians to

develop their ballistic missile

technology which they are very

actively doing. And number three, as

the Prince of Saudi Arabia puts it,

on the day of the sun sets, "My view

is, Iran will race to developing a

nuclear weapon without anybody

restricting them further. I come to

the question again, has it not

giving you any pause, this reaction?

Again, from where we were and would

be today, we have made tremendous

progress in rolling back their

programme and very importantly

providing insight. Prince Turkey

knows very well that measures of

means in terms of understanding of

what will be going on in a run. --

Acra one. -- Iran. Many believe we

should stay in it because of the

advantages. You mentioned Benjamin

Netanyahu. Let's talk about the

former Iran Hawke, one was involved

in Israeli military actions and he

came out in support of it. You can't

use the same arguments now as you

could two years ago. This is

analogous to what Ronald Reagan did

with their Soviet Union. In the face

of all of the other adversarial

relationships we had. Either way,

the UK, French and German

governments have all had this as a

foundation stone. We shouldn't be

sitting here carving, which should

be working to build off of this

foundation stone as we look forward

15 years.

On the principle of buying

time is it not wise for Congress to

put some new clauses or proposed

some new clauses? You used the

phrase about buying time.

You used

the term buying time.

It is implicit

on everything you said. Is it not

wise to ramp up the pressure?

Festival, we are not -- first of

all, we are not simply buying time.

We have a long period of time in

which they nuclear programme is is

rolled back. During which time, I

would hope that we could build on

that foundation and address what

happens down the road, 10- 15 years.

The transparency, the verification,

I want to emphasise, is the core of

the agreement. The I want to take

you to North Korea.

--I want to take

you to North Korea. It seems the

message from Trump on North Korea,

not entirely unrelated to Iran,

policy over a generation hasn't

worked. We have tried to work

multilaterally and it hasn't worked

and clearly, the North Koreans are

developing their weekly weapons

technology, they are miniaturising,

they are developing ballistic

missile technology, put them

together and the US is in the firing

line. Donald Trump has decided to

say, so far and no further. If you

continue on this path, fire and few

rebuild be the result. If that not

actually sensible diplomacy?

First

of all, you talk about not having an

agreement or a policy not working

for a long time. I will come back to

Korea but let me make one more point

about Iran. There was a deal to be

had in 2003. That was declined. Iran

went from essentially no centrifuges

to 20,000 centrifuges. No image

uranium to 20 times. -- times. --

tons. Sometimes buying time but

putting in place the kinds of

verification measures, it is

critical. Either way, verification

for North Korea will be equally

important.

We can't bend too much

time going back in time. But what we

can consider is right now and North

Korea and the notion that you have

that Donald Trump is not pursuing a

sensible course. -- we can't spend

too much time. There must be

dialogue now. I am saying, well,

they have tried that, many, many

times. Donald Trump is in essence

threatening something very

different.

He is using the fear

factor. I believe the piece you are

to does advocate dialogue. It makes

it clear that the first dialogue is

with China, South Korea and Japan.

But a different dialogue than what

we are seeing in the public. A

dialogue that is not simply the

United States making recommendations

to China for what we want to see

happen as opposed to a broader

dialogue of the entire security

context for that region, China,

North Korea, South Korea, Japan. Of

course, issues like the first

American military posture in the

region. Should an agreement be

reached is very important to China.

We have to put on the China are very

much broader set of issues. This is

a case where the issue of North

Korean nuclear weapons, I believe

and combined with missiles, can be

eventually resolved only by

enlarging the discussion to include

the full security context.

Right.

Well, those words sound great but I

am very mindful of what is actually

happening on the ground. Every

single day, the North Koreans appear

more determined to develop a

programme that would threaten allies

in the region. Here is my question.

You are part of the nuclear threat

initiative organisation. In your

view, is it inevitable that what

North Korea is doing today is going

to lead to another very dangerous

round of nuclear weapons

proliferation in our world?

That is

certainly a major risk. That is one

of the regions where we are

concerned about that, especially

since, it is very important. You

have talked about United States

coming under the range of North

Korean missiles. That is obviously a

very serious issue. I want to

emphasise the stop our allies, South

Korea and Japan are a military

forces, they have already been under

that threat. It is not just about

the United States. It is also about

tens of millions of people,

potentially, coming under threat in

South Korea and Japan. That threat

has been there for a while. And

frankly, South Korea, Seoul has been

under a huge threat. We need to have

a broader picture of the whole

security context.

Let me ask you this, now that you

are out of the administration and

free to say what you really think

and now you are heading up the

nuclear initiative organisation, do

you yourself believe that one day,

the United States should commit not

just the nuclear non-proliferation

but the abolition, the Nobel Peace

Prize has been given to a group who

are fundamentally committed to what

has become a US treaty -based notion

that one day we will get to a point

where all nations sign up to the

elimination of nuclear weapons. You

believe it's possible to imagine the

United doing that?

Yes. I think the

vision has to remain a world without

nuclear weapons. I'm not... Knots

not so naive to think that is

possible in any short time period,

it will take a long time to get

there. I hope we can get there.

That

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

of a fork hypocrisy isn't it for

parts of the world to lecture people

who do not have nuclear weapons and

to tell people not to get them. If

the US can't even prepared to commit

to a long-term abolition, why should

any other nation...?

The United

States is signatory to the

non-proliferation Treaty. It is a

different thing. It makes the

statement. The P5, US, Russia,

China, Britain, France, were singled

out as nuclear weapons states, the

rest of the world which other

non-nuclear weapon states, we would

act to help them develop peaceful

nuclear programmes and we would act

to eliminate nuclear weapons. It is

a commitment in the

non-proliferation Treaty, it is

already in the treaty. But to get

the required steps. The idea of just

talking about the vision, Frank Lee,

is not going to help us with a very,

very difficult, step-by-step

processes that will take a long time

to get there. What is the

verification regime for a world

without nuclear weapons? But the

tough question. It applies to

everybody. OK? Right now what we

focus on is let's make sure we are

taking the steps that prevents the

use of a nuclear weapon, that is the

real risk, and regrettably, I would

say the odds of that happening today

are higher wobbly since the Cuban

missile crisis.

So which do you lose

more sleepover, that threat, your

alarm about nuclear proliferation

and the danger, the real danger you

see is actually a nuclear conflict

in the world in the not too distant

future, or climate change, the

rising global temperatures, and the

fact that despite the Paris court,

it looks as though the International

will to keep temperature rise below

that two Celsius threshold isn't

going to be effective --a chord.

Which causes you more loss of sleep?

I bill through a third one in, bio

security, the possibility of

pandemics including those caused by

bad actors.

The Ronald Koeman -- are

only so many alarms we can deal

with.

Are you to give three main

issues though.

But with the climate

change, he worked very hard with

John Terry and others to get the

Paris deal and Donald Trump has

walked away from that. And it looks

like the American public doesn't

care that much that he has walked

away from it.

First of all I want to

make sure it is understood that what

has dropped it on June one was

announced the beginning of the

process to withdraw from the Paris

accord. Formally, it cannot occur...

Until around the time of his first

administration coming to an end.

Until the day after the next

presidential election. I don't

consider it a done deal.

Obviously I

was quite disturbed. But look at the

facts, whatever he can practically

do about the Paris accord, look at

what he has done, he has approved

new pipeline projects, massive

projects, double obviously further

expand fossil fuel exploitation in

the United States, he has revoked

the clean power plant, he has

overturned Obama's Arctic cooling

bad, he is reviewing commitment to

federal investment in clean energy

research and development. All of

these different levels he has taken

real, practical steps which are the

first the policies that you end

President Obama were driving.

Obviously I'm very unhappy about

this but it look at some other

facts. First of all the United

States is roughly speaking halfway

towards the Paris goal already. But

happened without these Federal

climate rules. The states were the

big drivers of this. The governors

of those states have recommitted the

continuing.

But because of easy wins

with the conversion from coal to

cheap shale oil and gas.

Cold to gas

was half, roughly half of the

progress.

And it is low-hanging

fruit but you have to move forward.

So the clean power plan which is

being called part of a war on coal

which never existed, but the clean

power plant would in fact, there is

no doubt, it was lower call's role

in illicit -- ultraslim production

on that list if there was carbon

capture in the discussion.

But

Donald Trump's is expanding coal

production, at least he wants to,

and reducing...

Let's talk about the

facts on coal, no one is talking

about building a new coal plant with

or without the clean power plant,

and secondly every projection I've

seen is that the target of the clean

power plant, 32% reduction in CO2 by

2030, is coming to be met even

without the clean power plant. Some

states now will not meet their

targets so there is a lot of

progress towards the low carbon

future but I would say the

President's announcement

notwithstanding in the United States

and globally, we are going to the

same place. There is no going back.

We are going to a low carbon future.

And that is so deeply held that in

fact after the President's

announcement, over 1000 businessmen

made the same statement.

We are

coming forward. International

scientists have just released a

paper saying the CO2 in the

atmosphere increased at record speed

last year. You are a respected

scientist in the field, is it too

late to have any hope of keeping

global temperatures, global warming

below that significantly below that

two Celsius threshold?

The threshold

I will not say, it will be tough to

meet, is it possible, it's possible,

but it will require serious

concerted action to get there.

Including in my view a pretty

universal price on carbon. But let

me emphasise to the great goal is a

very sensible one in terms of

minimising the damage from global

warming, minimising the degree of

very expensive adaptation in all

countries will have to do. However,

it is really important is to get as

far as we can in the carbon

greenhouse gas emissions reduction.

Because if we don't, we will be way

up the curve in global warming with

catastrophic impacts if we can't

make two degrees, but the 2.5

degrees.

I'm not giving up. I'm just

mindful that the current head of the

EPA, Donald Trump appointees Scott

Pruitt, as it is a belief that

carbon dioxide is the primary

contributor to global warming my

last question to you is do you feel

is renowned nuclear physicist,

scientists, a man who left science

to go into politics in the Federal

government, do you feel like an

endangered species? In the Donald

Trump era it seems a man like you

would have no chance of becoming a

key player in Washington politics.

There is no question I think this

administration to date at least has

not met the standard in my view for

putting in those who are

knowledgeable on the science as a

basis for policy. I do want to,

however, I cannot let this go

without saying you said Scott Pruitt

cosmic statement, it simply

incorrect and in fact...

It isn't so

much you want to the dispute whether

it is correct or not, I want you to

address has something fundamental

change in US government that

rationality, data, science, matters

less than it is noted the

generations?

I'm not going to talk

about generations but I can talk

about the last decade and the answer

is yes. It is a fact that we are

seeing far less fact driven,

analytically driven analysis of

policy and I might say that what I

found personally in the last

administration was full, look, it

isn't as though the Obama White

House and Congress had a wonderful

political relationship. Let's face

it, it was quite difficult. Even

within that when the Department of

energy went forward with policy

recommendations clearly based on

data analysis, we found a very

receptive Congress and they in fact,

enacted legislation to put in place

many of those recommendations. I

think the administration is missing

and it by not basing their policy on

that and statements of the type that

you made about carbon and climate

are a good example of an anti- fact

driven statement. The key is society

will keep moving in that direction

of low carbon.

We will see. Ernest

Moniz, thank you for being on

HARDtalk.

My pleasure.