0:00:02 > 0:00:08stop building rather than tearing each other to pieces. -- start
0:00:08 > 0:00:11building. Tonight on Newsnight Scotland:
0:00:11 > 0:00:13One of the world's leading climate change experts warns us we face
0:00:13 > 0:00:16disaster unless we begin cutting carbon emissions now.
0:00:16 > 0:00:19But since the onset of the financial crash, is anyone still
0:00:19 > 0:00:22listening? Good evening. The world-renowned
0:00:22 > 0:00:25American climate scientist James Hansen of NASA is in Scotland this
0:00:25 > 0:00:28week to pick up The Edinburgh Medal, a science award. Tonight, he
0:00:28 > 0:00:31addressed an audience at the capital's International Science
0:00:31 > 0:00:33Festival. Few dispute his scientific expertise, but he's
0:00:33 > 0:00:43become a controversial figure by taking part in protests over
0:00:43 > 0:00:48
0:00:48 > 0:00:54climate change. He's even been arrested on several occasions.
0:00:54 > 0:01:03Dr James Hansen and hence NASA or's Institute for Space Studies, but is
0:01:03 > 0:01:09probably best known for bringing climate change to the world's
0:01:09 > 0:01:15attention in the 1980s. More than 30 years ago, James Hansen and his
0:01:15 > 0:01:25team created one at the first climate models and used it to show
0:01:25 > 0:01:26
0:01:27 > 0:01:34what has happened to our climate ever since. In 2009, he wrote to
0:01:34 > 0:01:41Scotland's First Minister asking for a moratorium on call feel.
0:01:41 > 0:01:45Recently, he has come under fire for behaving as an activist rather
0:01:45 > 0:01:50than a scientist. He has won many awards for his work on climate
0:01:50 > 0:01:54change and has been arrested three times.
0:01:54 > 0:01:56Earlier today I caught up with Dr James Hansen and put it to him that
0:01:56 > 0:02:03he thought current projections about climate change are too
0:02:03 > 0:02:11conservative. Well, what we have realised is that
0:02:11 > 0:02:16the level of global warming and which dangerous effects will come
0:02:16 > 0:02:24into effect on lower than what we thought a few years ago. So targets
0:02:24 > 0:02:31to keep global warming less than two Celsius are actually disaster
0:02:31 > 0:02:38scenarios. When that happened previously, our sea levels were at
0:02:38 > 0:02:45least 15 metres higher. By other things that struck me was one of
0:02:45 > 0:02:49your forecasts for what needs to be done to get C02 up and how much
0:02:49 > 0:02:56more difficult that becomes if you delay doing anything about it for
0:02:56 > 0:03:01only a matter of a few decades. Can explain that? If we had started in
0:03:01 > 0:03:042005 to reduce away emissions, we could have reduced 3% a year and
0:03:04 > 0:03:14stabilised the crime at this century. If we start now, it
0:03:14 > 0:03:17
0:03:18 > 0:03:23requires 6% this year. -- stabilise the climate this century. You want
0:03:23 > 0:03:316% cuts in emissions starting now. Years, starting next year.
0:03:31 > 0:03:35obvious problem is that despite incredible amount of rhetoric by
0:03:35 > 0:03:40politicians and the Kyoto summit, we are not cutting emissions and it
0:03:40 > 0:03:44is not going to happen next year. In it will not happen as long as we
0:03:44 > 0:03:49subsidise fossil fuels and do not put a price on them to make them
0:03:49 > 0:03:55pay their cost to society. It we would simply do that with a
0:03:55 > 0:04:03gradually rising price or tax or fee on fossil fuels, then we will
0:04:03 > 0:04:08phase them out and it to clean energy. You are talking initially
0:04:08 > 0:04:18all of $15 per tonne of omitted C02. Have you done any calculations of
0:04:18 > 0:04:19
0:04:20 > 0:04:23what that would mean to people's electricity bills, for example?
0:04:23 > 0:04:30the United States the most relevant number is the price of petrol.
0:04:30 > 0:04:39After 10 years it would amount to $1 a gallon. Her much is it at the
0:04:39 > 0:04:46moment? It is $4 a gallon. That would reduce hour emissions by 30 %.
0:04:46 > 0:04:49That is more effective than any of these offset schemes which amount
0:04:50 > 0:04:57to nothing in the end. The problem you have that in order for this to
0:04:57 > 0:05:06work, it has got to affect people, it has got to hurt. If you could
0:05:06 > 0:05:16take the comparison with the idea of taxing financial transactions on
0:05:16 > 0:05:21
0:05:21 > 0:05:27a global break -- a global rate, would it be something that actually
0:05:27 > 0:05:35affects people? If the money collected is distributed to the
0:05:35 > 0:05:39people on a per capita basis, or people will get more monthly and
0:05:39 > 0:05:42the public will be more interested. But the money is taken by
0:05:43 > 0:05:48politicians and they decide who they will distribute the money to,
0:05:48 > 0:05:54then the public will not allow that. They will throw out anybody from
0:05:54 > 0:06:04office with us that. I come back to the point it has gone off the
0:06:04 > 0:06:07
0:06:07 > 0:06:17agenda. You must be disappointed in the Obama administration.
0:06:17 > 0:06:20
0:06:20 > 0:06:27effectiveness of the people who want to see the public continually
0:06:27 > 0:06:34confused, it cannot continue and we have to change this. Mother Nature
0:06:34 > 0:06:44it will help because the climate effects are becoming more apparent.
0:06:44 > 0:06:44
0:06:44 > 0:06:51What used to be 83 seed mat events -- A three the cinema event is only
0:06:51 > 0:06:55happening about the % of the time. The person he is a servant can see
0:06:55 > 0:07:05that the climate is changing. of the points you made it is that
0:07:05 > 0:07:13you have to calculate the effects of carbon emissions over the life
0:07:13 > 0:07:23cycle of emissions and the atmosphere. In Britain, we had the
0:07:23 > 0:07:26
0:07:27 > 0:07:30proud distinction of being more responsible for making a change.
0:07:30 > 0:07:34is the excess Co 2 in their air today, not the current rates of
0:07:34 > 0:07:38emission that are changing the climate. So we have a
0:07:38 > 0:07:42responsibility, and frankly, Britain is beginning to take some
0:07:42 > 0:07:49steps. I think you are stopping the building of more coal-fired power
0:07:49 > 0:07:54plants. That is a major step in the right direction. We are not as
0:07:54 > 0:08:02optimistic as you well on that front! One in England was cancelled.
0:08:02 > 0:08:12There are proposals to build coal fire power plants in Scotland with
0:08:12 > 0:08:13
0:08:13 > 0:08:23carbon catchers storage. The problem is, we know how to do the
0:08:23 > 0:08:24
0:08:24 > 0:08:30coal fuel plants, but not capture the carbon. To pretend that you are
0:08:30 > 0:08:34going to capture 15, 20 %, that is a hoax. You have to capture it all.
0:08:34 > 0:08:40He would prefer or a mix of renewables and new forms of nuclear
0:08:40 > 0:08:44energy. Yes. I think we need for base load electric power were, we
0:08:44 > 0:08:52need next generation nuclear power which can be safer and can burn
0:08:52 > 0:08:56nuclear waste. What do you say to people, and there are the lot of
0:08:56 > 0:09:01people that criticise the fact he had become something of an activist
0:09:01 > 0:09:06rather than a scientist. You do not just the right papers, you get
0:09:06 > 0:09:10arrested outside the White House on a regular basis. Some people will
0:09:10 > 0:09:16sympathise with your views and they are saying, look you are
0:09:16 > 0:09:19compromising your position as one of the world's leading scientists
0:09:19 > 0:09:24on climate change by behaving like some kid a university at a
0:09:24 > 0:09:29demonstration. Well, I think that science has to stand on its own
0:09:29 > 0:09:36merits and there are ways the scientific community has of
0:09:36 > 0:09:43reviewing signs. But I think it is irresponsible if not to point and
0:09:43 > 0:09:47the consequences of the climate change. I don't understand the
0:09:47 > 0:09:52objections. You know, I have children and grandchildren and I
0:09:52 > 0:09:57have a responsibility to them, not just to do the science, but to
0:09:57 > 0:09:59point out the consequences. We will leave it there. Thank you.
0:09:59 > 0:10:02I'm joined now by the Scottish Green Party co-convener Patrick
0:10:02 > 0:10:11Harvie MSP, and from Oxford by the environmental campaigner Chris
0:10:11 > 0:10:19Goodall. First of all, we need to look aware we are. Since Compton
0:10:19 > 0:10:27Paygan fell spectacularly, has anything been done doing this
0:10:27 > 0:10:32debate? -- failed spectacularly in Copenhagen. We want to set targets
0:10:32 > 0:10:35and take climate change seriously. Unfortunately, a sort of going
0:10:35 > 0:10:39along with the claim that the reductions in emissions we have
0:10:39 > 0:10:42seen because of the recession our achievements, I think there is a
0:10:42 > 0:10:46real danger that if and when we start to come out of recession
0:10:46 > 0:10:49properly, we will start to see those emissions bounce back up
0:10:49 > 0:10:55again and we will find the reductions we have seen over the
0:10:55 > 0:11:00last few years have not been the result of policy, but the result of
0:11:00 > 0:11:04economic circumstance. The issue has to some extent gone away in the
0:11:04 > 0:11:09public debate, the public imagination. Yes indeed. People
0:11:09 > 0:11:13rarely talk about it. Five years ago it was very different. But as
0:11:13 > 0:11:21James Hansen said, the issue has pretty much disappeared.
0:11:21 > 0:11:26problem with that is it starts to look as if climate change is a fair
0:11:26 > 0:11:31weather issue, if you will excuse the pun. When things are well with
0:11:31 > 0:11:41the economy, people pay attention to which. But when people have more
0:11:41 > 0:11:42
0:11:42 > 0:11:47pressing issues on their minds, it We are lucky we are not seeing the
0:11:47 > 0:11:50impact of climate change yet here. In the United States, it is
0:11:50 > 0:11:59painfully apparent that temperatures are increasing and
0:11:59 > 0:12:04rainfall is becoming more frequent. That does not mean the tempered --
0:12:04 > 0:12:14problem is not getting more serious here. If that is the case and if
0:12:14 > 0:12:18
0:12:18 > 0:12:25you agree with James Hanson that the 6% annum that he suggests, the
0:12:25 > 0:12:29match he suggests carbon emissions should be cut to stop catastrophic
0:12:29 > 0:12:33change, at surely that is just not going to happen. There is no
0:12:33 > 0:12:38momentum towards that at the moment. I think things are going slightly
0:12:38 > 0:12:45better than we think. It may be that, as Patrick said, that a lot
0:12:45 > 0:12:49of the reductions we are seeing are as a result of the recession. Reece
0:12:49 > 0:12:57the -- governments, slowly, ponderously, are taking action and
0:12:57 > 0:13:01we are seeing real reductions in emissions. But what is happening to
0:13:01 > 0:13:07carbon emissions on the world scale now? They are not going down.
0:13:07 > 0:13:12they are certainly not. They are in this country, and in most of the
0:13:12 > 0:13:20developed world. In China, they continue to increase. So to get to
0:13:20 > 0:13:30where we are now, the proposal of a 6% cut would be an enormous tasks?
0:13:30 > 0:13:30
0:13:30 > 0:13:37Task? Committees on child -- Climate Change in Britain are
0:13:37 > 0:13:47giving lower figures. We need to substantially changed direction in
0:13:47 > 0:13:49
0:13:49 > 0:13:59a short number of years. If we are to do that, Patrick Harvie, do you
0:13:59 > 0:14:02
0:14:02 > 0:14:08agree with a specific proposal that everyone can focus on? There are
0:14:08 > 0:14:13things that can have a dramatic, not a marginal, effective in
0:14:13 > 0:14:19specific countries. We have just heard mentioned renewables. In
0:14:19 > 0:14:23Scotland we have a historic responsibility because of our
0:14:23 > 0:14:28contribution to child -- climate change through carbon dioxide
0:14:28 > 0:14:33emissions. We also have an opportunity, a real opportunity, to
0:14:33 > 0:14:35produce a huge amount of renewable energy, not just for our own
0:14:36 > 0:14:44benefit and hopefully for the public benefit rather than
0:14:44 > 0:14:50shareholder value, but also to fulfil needs be on Scotland itself.
0:14:50 > 0:14:55There are opportunities to achieve dramatic change which do not
0:14:55 > 0:15:05necessarily depend on global deals. I have just come from a showing of
0:15:05 > 0:15:05
0:15:05 > 0:15:14a film about the President of the mouldy violins -- Maltese --
0:15:14 > 0:15:18Islands in the Indian Ocean. He is trying to give global leadership on
0:15:18 > 0:15:22climate change because the generation growing up on the moment
0:15:22 > 0:15:32-- at the moment may be the last ones to have an island to live on
0:15:32 > 0:15:32
0:15:32 > 0:15:36there. That is the kind of leadership that to be really do
0:15:36 > 0:15:40require. It is not going to come from those who simply see this as
0:15:40 > 0:15:44an opportunity for a different kind of GDP growth. Isn't the bottom
0:15:44 > 0:15:49line here, Chris Goodall, if you want to do something in the short
0:15:49 > 0:15:53to medium term, there are two things you need to focus on. One is
0:15:53 > 0:16:02carbon capture and storage. To develop the technology because of
0:16:02 > 0:16:07the coal plants. And a new generation of safer nuclear power
0:16:07 > 0:16:12stations that do not emit carbon. Yes. I think that absolutely is
0:16:12 > 0:16:17necessary. The Government has sought of acknowledge both those
0:16:17 > 0:16:21points. The difficult thing is that the environmental movement as a
0:16:21 > 0:16:25whole is not finding it easy to move to a position where it
0:16:25 > 0:16:30supports either of those things, particularly nuclear power. But
0:16:30 > 0:16:38without nuclear power, I do not think any of the time is that James
0:16:38 > 0:16:46Hansen mentioned are she will in the UK. Again, that would take
0:16:47 > 0:16:54enormous cross country government agreement to do that. Yes. We're
0:16:54 > 0:17:00not talking about climate change it. There are people who want to build
0:17:00 > 0:17:03nuclear power stations in the UK. The French company EDF will
0:17:03 > 0:17:08probably build power stations in England over the next 10 years, but
0:17:08 > 0:17:11there is not that much appetite for it. We need to have 10 or 20 of
0:17:11 > 0:17:18these things to make a real difference to our electricity
0:17:18 > 0:17:21supply. Do you think that you... Environmentalists are coming round
0:17:21 > 0:17:26the idea that a new generation of nuclear power which doesn't have
0:17:26 > 0:17:29the problems of the old generation, is a good idea. With respect to
0:17:29 > 0:17:39what you are saying about Scotland's opportunities for
0:17:39 > 0:17:44
0:17:44 > 0:17:48renewables. That is fine. Nuclear power is the way to go, perhaps?
0:17:48 > 0:17:58You come up against this problem as we do on how to get emissions
0:17:58 > 0:18:08reduced globally. There is a proper -- about necessity and
0:18:08 > 0:18:09
0:18:09 > 0:18:14accessibility. Are safe and clean and sustainable nuclear power
0:18:14 > 0:18:17stations possible? And not condensed that they exist. If in
0:18:17 > 0:18:21the future, some radical new form of technology becomes available, I
0:18:21 > 0:18:25think a lot of people would look at it. But looking at what is possible
0:18:25 > 0:18:29now, it is not clean, safe or sustainable and not affordable
0:18:29 > 0:18:37either. It requires a huge subsidy and that is why companies are
0:18:37 > 0:18:41pulling out at the moment. Chris Goodall, what is your view on that?
0:18:41 > 0:18:47I know that technically there are these the generations of power
0:18:47 > 0:18:50stations which are safer, but as Patrick Harvie says, when a
0:18:50 > 0:18:57proposal comes to build on commercially, the proposals are
0:18:57 > 0:19:00thin on the ground. Several companies want to do it. A German
0:19:00 > 0:19:04company backed out a couple of weeks ago, saying they could not
0:19:04 > 0:19:12raise the money to do it. Nuclear power stations IMA is the expensive.
0:19:12 > 0:19:18Thank you very much. A quick look at the front pages. A warning over
0:19:18 > 0:19:25the delivery of a new schools for a -- curriculum. The same story in
0:19:25 > 0:19:34the Scotsman. A scathing reform condemns a new curriculum. The
0:19:34 > 0:19:40Daily Mail, �200 on all fuel bills if we split from the UK. A cash