10/04/2012 Newsnight Scotland

stop building rather than tearing each other to pieces. -- start

building. Tonight on Newsnight Scotland:

One of the world's leading climate change experts warns us we face

disaster unless we begin cutting carbon emissions now.

But since the onset of the financial crash, is anyone still

listening? Good evening. The world-renowned

American climate scientist James Hansen of NASA is in Scotland this

week to pick up The Edinburgh Medal, a science award. Tonight, he

addressed an audience at the capital's International Science

Festival. Few dispute his scientific expertise, but he's

become a controversial figure by taking part in protests over

climate change. He's even been arrested on several occasions.

Dr James Hansen and hence NASA or's Institute for Space Studies, but is

probably best known for bringing climate change to the world's

attention in the 1980s. More than 30 years ago, James Hansen and his

team created one at the first climate models and used it to show

what has happened to our climate ever since. In 2009, he wrote to

Scotland's First Minister asking for a moratorium on call feel.

Recently, he has come under fire for behaving as an activist rather

than a scientist. He has won many awards for his work on climate

change and has been arrested three times.

Earlier today I caught up with Dr James Hansen and put it to him that

he thought current projections about climate change are too

conservative. Well, what we have realised is that

the level of global warming and which dangerous effects will come

into effect on lower than what we thought a few years ago. So targets

to keep global warming less than two Celsius are actually disaster

scenarios. When that happened previously, our sea levels were at

least 15 metres higher. By other things that struck me was one of

your forecasts for what needs to be done to get C02 up and how much

more difficult that becomes if you delay doing anything about it for

only a matter of a few decades. Can explain that? If we had started in

2005 to reduce away emissions, we could have reduced 3% a year and

stabilised the crime at this century. If we start now, it

requires 6% this year. -- stabilise the climate this century. You want

6% cuts in emissions starting now. Years, starting next year.

obvious problem is that despite incredible amount of rhetoric by

politicians and the Kyoto summit, we are not cutting emissions and it

is not going to happen next year. In it will not happen as long as we

subsidise fossil fuels and do not put a price on them to make them

pay their cost to society. It we would simply do that with a

gradually rising price or tax or fee on fossil fuels, then we will

phase them out and it to clean energy. You are talking initially

all of $15 per tonne of omitted C02. Have you done any calculations of

what that would mean to people's electricity bills, for example?

the United States the most relevant number is the price of petrol.

After 10 years it would amount to $1 a gallon. Her much is it at the

moment? It is $4 a gallon. That would reduce hour emissions by 30 %.

That is more effective than any of these offset schemes which amount

to nothing in the end. The problem you have that in order for this to

work, it has got to affect people, it has got to hurt. If you could

take the comparison with the idea of taxing financial transactions on

a global break -- a global rate, would it be something that actually

affects people? If the money collected is distributed to the

people on a per capita basis, or people will get more monthly and

the public will be more interested. But the money is taken by

politicians and they decide who they will distribute the money to,

then the public will not allow that. They will throw out anybody from

office with us that. I come back to the point it has gone off the

agenda. You must be disappointed in the Obama administration.

effectiveness of the people who want to see the public continually

confused, it cannot continue and we have to change this. Mother Nature

it will help because the climate effects are becoming more apparent.

What used to be 83 seed mat events -- A three the cinema event is only

happening about the % of the time. The person he is a servant can see

that the climate is changing. of the points you made it is that

you have to calculate the effects of carbon emissions over the life

cycle of emissions and the atmosphere. In Britain, we had the

proud distinction of being more responsible for making a change.

is the excess Co 2 in their air today, not the current rates of

emission that are changing the climate. So we have a

responsibility, and frankly, Britain is beginning to take some

steps. I think you are stopping the building of more coal-fired power

plants. That is a major step in the right direction. We are not as

optimistic as you well on that front! One in England was cancelled.

There are proposals to build coal fire power plants in Scotland with

carbon catchers storage. The problem is, we know how to do the

coal fuel plants, but not capture the carbon. To pretend that you are

going to capture 15, 20 %, that is a hoax. You have to capture it all.

He would prefer or a mix of renewables and new forms of nuclear

energy. Yes. I think we need for base load electric power were, we

need next generation nuclear power which can be safer and can burn

nuclear waste. What do you say to people, and there are the lot of

people that criticise the fact he had become something of an activist

rather than a scientist. You do not just the right papers, you get

arrested outside the White House on a regular basis. Some people will

sympathise with your views and they are saying, look you are

compromising your position as one of the world's leading scientists

on climate change by behaving like some kid a university at a

demonstration. Well, I think that science has to stand on its own

merits and there are ways the scientific community has of

reviewing signs. But I think it is irresponsible if not to point and

the consequences of the climate change. I don't understand the

objections. You know, I have children and grandchildren and I

have a responsibility to them, not just to do the science, but to

point out the consequences. We will leave it there. Thank you.

I'm joined now by the Scottish Green Party co-convener Patrick

Harvie MSP, and from Oxford by the environmental campaigner Chris

Goodall. First of all, we need to look aware we are. Since Compton

Paygan fell spectacularly, has anything been done doing this

debate? -- failed spectacularly in Copenhagen. We want to set targets

and take climate change seriously. Unfortunately, a sort of going

along with the claim that the reductions in emissions we have

seen because of the recession our achievements, I think there is a

real danger that if and when we start to come out of recession

properly, we will start to see those emissions bounce back up

again and we will find the reductions we have seen over the

last few years have not been the result of policy, but the result of

economic circumstance. The issue has to some extent gone away in the

public debate, the public imagination. Yes indeed. People

rarely talk about it. Five years ago it was very different. But as

James Hansen said, the issue has pretty much disappeared.

problem with that is it starts to look as if climate change is a fair

weather issue, if you will excuse the pun. When things are well with

the economy, people pay attention to which. But when people have more

pressing issues on their minds, it We are lucky we are not seeing the

impact of climate change yet here. In the United States, it is

painfully apparent that temperatures are increasing and

rainfall is becoming more frequent. That does not mean the tempered --

problem is not getting more serious here. If that is the case and if

you agree with James Hanson that the 6% annum that he suggests, the

match he suggests carbon emissions should be cut to stop catastrophic

change, at surely that is just not going to happen. There is no

momentum towards that at the moment. I think things are going slightly

better than we think. It may be that, as Patrick said, that a lot

of the reductions we are seeing are as a result of the recession. Reece

the -- governments, slowly, ponderously, are taking action and

we are seeing real reductions in emissions. But what is happening to

carbon emissions on the world scale now? They are not going down.

they are certainly not. They are in this country, and in most of the

developed world. In China, they continue to increase. So to get to

where we are now, the proposal of a 6% cut would be an enormous tasks?

Task? Committees on child -- Climate Change in Britain are

giving lower figures. We need to substantially changed direction in

a short number of years. If we are to do that, Patrick Harvie, do you

agree with a specific proposal that everyone can focus on? There are

things that can have a dramatic, not a marginal, effective in

specific countries. We have just heard mentioned renewables. In

Scotland we have a historic responsibility because of our

contribution to child -- climate change through carbon dioxide

emissions. We also have an opportunity, a real opportunity, to

produce a huge amount of renewable energy, not just for our own

benefit and hopefully for the public benefit rather than

shareholder value, but also to fulfil needs be on Scotland itself.

There are opportunities to achieve dramatic change which do not

necessarily depend on global deals. I have just come from a showing of

a film about the President of the mouldy violins -- Maltese --

Islands in the Indian Ocean. He is trying to give global leadership on

climate change because the generation growing up on the moment

-- at the moment may be the last ones to have an island to live on

there. That is the kind of leadership that to be really do

require. It is not going to come from those who simply see this as

an opportunity for a different kind of GDP growth. Isn't the bottom

line here, Chris Goodall, if you want to do something in the short

to medium term, there are two things you need to focus on. One is

carbon capture and storage. To develop the technology because of

the coal plants. And a new generation of safer nuclear power

stations that do not emit carbon. Yes. I think that absolutely is

necessary. The Government has sought of acknowledge both those

points. The difficult thing is that the environmental movement as a

whole is not finding it easy to move to a position where it

supports either of those things, particularly nuclear power. But

without nuclear power, I do not think any of the time is that James

Hansen mentioned are she will in the UK. Again, that would take

enormous cross country government agreement to do that. Yes. We're

not talking about climate change it. There are people who want to build

nuclear power stations in the UK. The French company EDF will

probably build power stations in England over the next 10 years, but

there is not that much appetite for it. We need to have 10 or 20 of

these things to make a real difference to our electricity

supply. Do you think that you... Environmentalists are coming round

the idea that a new generation of nuclear power which doesn't have

the problems of the old generation, is a good idea. With respect to

what you are saying about Scotland's opportunities for

renewables. That is fine. Nuclear power is the way to go, perhaps?

You come up against this problem as we do on how to get emissions

reduced globally. There is a proper -- about necessity and

accessibility. Are safe and clean and sustainable nuclear power

stations possible? And not condensed that they exist. If in

the future, some radical new form of technology becomes available, I

think a lot of people would look at it. But looking at what is possible

now, it is not clean, safe or sustainable and not affordable

either. It requires a huge subsidy and that is why companies are

pulling out at the moment. Chris Goodall, what is your view on that?

I know that technically there are these the generations of power

stations which are safer, but as Patrick Harvie says, when a

proposal comes to build on commercially, the proposals are

thin on the ground. Several companies want to do it. A German

company backed out a couple of weeks ago, saying they could not

raise the money to do it. Nuclear power stations IMA is the expensive.

Thank you very much. A quick look at the front pages. A warning over

the delivery of a new schools for a -- curriculum. The same story in

the Scotsman. A scathing reform condemns a new curriculum. The

Daily Mail, �200 on all fuel bills if we split from the UK. A cash