05/09/2012 Newsnight

Britain in 2012 a country so expensive that even when parents do

work, their children can still go without. Politicians talk of hard

working Britain, but what is it like when your parents have to work

too hard. My dad works two jobs. But I don't get to see him much,

when he's off he does carpets, I feel left out, because I really

love my dad. We ask the former Labour

communications director, who has just launched a Save the Children

campaign in this country, a single mother, the Education Committee

chair, and the man from the at this tank founded by Iain Duncan Smith.

They are back from the beaches, so it is time for the eurocrisis to

resume. Tomorrow the head of the European Central Bank hopes to stop

the anxiety. What does the man who was President Obama's chief

financial adviser think he has to say. Come to that, how does he rate

George Osborne? Also tonight, Newsnight uncovers

new evidence suggesting melting Arctic ice will have a dramatic

effect on our climate. Is now the time to kick back, relax, and learn

to love cloudy Augusts. The summer area of ice has already gone down

from eight to four million square kilometres, as it collapses we will

lose another four million. Four million square kilometres is about

1% of the surface area of the earth. The new leader of the Green Party,

and a prominent climate change sceptic, are both here.

You have heard of Save the Children, you may have given to one of their

appeals, to help suffering children overseas. Yet now, for the first

time, this affluent society's charity, is running a campaign

about deprived children in this country. Their conclusions are

troubling. They say that in the poorest households, nearly two

thirds of parents say they have cut back on food. Over a quarter have

gone without meals, and a fifth say their children have gone without

new shoes, when they have needed them. We are going to talk about

why it is happening, and what we maybe can do about it. First, we

ought to hear from some children themselves, all of them in families

struggling in the downturn. I'm Andrew, I'm 12 years old. I

like to be a marine biologist. I want to be people that go around

the world discovering art facts of Diana And Actaeon saurs, an

archaeologist, a scientist and a professional football player --

dinosaurs, and an archaeologist, a scientist and a professional

football player, I can't be all three, I will be too fired. Once we

were playing football on a field, and there was a gang on there with

a gun. We heard shots fired. The park, a lad got killed outside

there, and was dumped on our street. I had to witness him trying to be

revived. Snails. Another brick. volunteer in a youth project, and

we come up here and dig out all the weeds. We got rid of 12 tonnes of

rubbish. We plant flowers. We are making it so it is like a nature

trail, you can go down and pick berries, and look at the nice

flowers. We were struggling to pay bills, and me dad lost his job, and

his contract, so they were struggling, we had to live with our

nan for a bit. And then my dad got another job, two jobs, and started

working with that. Me mum helped as well. Me mum, she will miss out on

a new pair of shoes, to get us uniforms, or a bit more expensive

stuff, clothes and that. Or she will get a cheaper type of food to

feed us. When she can't afford to get and pay bills, she will get

dead stressed and be worried about it. Found a worm. Hey there little

guy. He's trying to eat my finger. My dad works, two jobs. Four nights,

two nights, two days. But I don't really get to see him much, because

when he's off, he does carpet, and I feel left out, because I really

love my dad. REPORTER: Would you I'm 13 years old. I'm 12, my name

is Precious. I would like to be either a medical doctor, or an

economist. I like maths, and I'm good with my numbers. I either want

to be a lawyer, or study medicine. I like my free school meals because

they are good, and they help. Even though I'm happy for it. Sometimes

the food is costly, which is not even nice, there might be a

sandwich which is �1.80, and you only have �2 on your dinner ticket,

you won't have anything to buy anything else. Sometimes it fills

me up, sometimes it doesn't. chips fill you up, they are cheaper,

if you were to go to a supermarket and buy a pack of fruit or

something, which I don't tend to do, they are more expensive. I like

strawberries, I like mangos and pomegranates. Say there was one

mango for �1, you may think to yourself, what is the point of

buying that one mango, and you can have a pack of chips that will fill

you up even more. We normally do a cake stall to raise money for us.

We make fairy cakes. You you get extra money so you can spend it on

stuff you like. We normally do it with our youth groups too. That's

not funny! We just want to show other children on the road that

there is more to do than wasting your time being silly on the road,

creating gangs. School uniform is very expensive. My school uniform

costs �380 just for me. That wasn't including any of my white T-shirts,

my school shoes, my bag or anything, just main stuff like the jumper and

the blazer and the skirt. My school uniform was really expensive, it

was twice as much as her's. I only got one blazer, because I had to

get a big-sized blazer to last me quite long. We are privileged, when

you look across the road to the other houses, which are more posh.

Then, on our house some people may judge it from the outside, they

might say on the outside it looks bad, on the inside it is actually

nice. We have never been all together on holiday. We went to

Brighton. But we didn't stay there, I am eight years old. I like street

dance. I want to be a dancer. Mummy doesn't have enough money to buy

clothes sometimes. I get clothes off other people. Clothes that

haven't been used, and some clothes that they have worn. I got to baton

swirling, swimming and brownies, I like all of them. Mummy knows one

of the brownie leaders, and the brownie leader says she doesn't

have to pay for the badges. If I won lods loads of money, I would

buy loads of presents for my friends for their birthdays, and

buy loads and loads and loads and loads of presents for mummy on her

birthday. Sometimes I like to go out for a meal, but I know mum

doesn't have enough money. She has to spend loads of money on food.

She feeds us before her, because she wants to make us happy. She

gives us nice things, and doesn't eat her breakfast. She's hungry.

My mum always says to me, even universities cost that much, I will

still go, even if it costs millions of poupbtdz, I will still go. She

wants me to go to university, I do too. I I want to go to university,

because education means a better life. I want to go to university. I

do want to, because we're struggling to pay the bills. It's

like �10,000. I have been saving up quite a bit of money from birthdays

and things like that. So I have got a head start of getting to

university. Well, before we talk about some of the issues in that

film. Our political correspondent is here. To explain how many

children we are talking about, and what we actually mean by children

living in poverty. David. You might think it is an easy thing

to measure child poverty, and you might point to factors like someone

not having anywhere to live, being undernourished, having inadequate

clothing. That is certainly the measures that were used by 19th

century social campaigner, and mercifully, on those measure, there

is ininfinitely less poverty in Britain than there was 200 years

ago. Job done. Well, not so fast, in recent decades, policy makers

and campaigner, have settled on a different measure, relative poverty.

How well off someone is in relation to everyone else. The most common

measure of child poverty, favoured by the last Government, is the

number of children living in households whose income is less

than 60% of median, or middle income. In 2011, that was �419 a

week. The Labour Government set a target of eliminating child poverty

by 2020. And by 2010, they enshrined that in law. And here's

the good news. Child poverty has fallen, in the past few years. Most

markedly in 2010/2011, that is not because poorer families have got

richer, but everyone else has been getting poorer quicker. Leading to

a reduction in the median income, from �432 a week, to �419. The Work

and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, has described this as

perverse, that when times are good we get more poor people, and when

times are bad we get fewer. He notes that by this way of thinking,

the simplest way of reducing child poverty, is to collapse the economy.

The criticism of the Labour years is that ministers fixated on an

abitary line, and they spent billions on moving people from a

few pound under the line, to a few pounds over it, without tackling

the causes of poverty right at the bottom. Like unemployment, family

breakdown, and addiction. The current Government says it is

absolutely committed to tackling child poverty, it is just we have

to get a whole lot better at measuring it. With us is Justin

Forsyth, the chief executive of Save the Children, and former

adviser to Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. Tracey Nugent, a lone parent

from Glasgow. The Conservative MP, Graham Stuart, chair of the

Education Select Committee, and Christian Guy, from the Centre for

Social Justice, founded by the welfare secretary, Iain Duncan

Smith. What is it like to bring up a child who is not only poor, but

aware of the circumstances? intensifies the stress, which would

then intensify his stress. He was originally, for a long, long time,

Adam was my carer, because I couldn't handle the issues I was

having to deal with. And now, that I'm out earning, I think a lot of

people think, they have on the rose tinted glasses, thinking I'm OK now.

Not taking into consideration the amount of debts that we accrued.

That we are now paying back. are no better off, despite the fact

you are working? No. Mentally, my mental health, and the fact that

I'm getting up and going out to work every morning, that is

absolutely fantastic. However, when I come home at night, the same

financial issues are still sitting there. I'm very, very aware, over

the fact, that if I'm not dealing with them properly, it will have a

knock-on effect to my child, who is then going to adopt those

behaviours, and perhaps think it is OK not to earn a great wage, not to

follow their ambition, and not to better themselves. He's growing up

in a world which he sees shiny, glistening attractive things

daingled in front of him all the time? Absolutely. The area we come

from, there are very few lone parents, they are women. In the

area we have, people have a mum and dad, two or three bedroom, a front

door, back door garden. Adam and I are currently sharing a bedroom. My

kitchen is in the living room. The only reason we can heat our house

at this minute, because I got a grant. Are you aware that there are

fewer people living in poverty in this country than there were, does

it feel like that to you? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. I

come from a background where my mum and dad instilled in me that you

must have a very good and strong work ethic. Unfortunately, because

of the circumstances that I'm in, and I can't claw myself out of,

he's going to think that's OK. you surprised when you started

looking into this situation, in this country? I think we were

surprised. Because I think what we have heard from children, and

parents, and we saw in your films, is so many children aren't only

eating properly or getting a winter coat, but the stress that goes with

that. That took us most by surprise. What is happening to families, as

Tracey as said, is a combination of factors that have come together.

High energy prices are a big factor, unemployment, cuts in benefits,

high food prices, there is that perfect storm, that is really

affecting families, that is what makes it really hard. What people

don't realise, because they have this caricature in their head, that

most people that are poor in families are undeserving, they are

drug addicts and dropouts, but actually 61% of families are

actually working, where children are poor. They are striving to get

out of poverty, and they need a bit of a helping hand. Is there a

solution? I think there is, it doesn't cost the earth either. One

of the biggest factor, and Tracey knows this full well, is childcare.

It is a huge factor, actually being able to afford to go into work, and

earn an income. That saves the Government money if you are in work.

So the taxpayer pays this? What we have had is a cut in childcare

support for the poorest families, it is a tiny investment. You would

help a million children, with a �400 million investment. That would

help then get them into work and would mean less benefits and save

money longer term. Does that make sense to you? About childcare or

the general debate. The solution? On childcare I think there is a

major problem with childcare, I'm not convinced that more tax-payers'

money to subsidise the inflated costs of childcare is quite the

answer. There are things we can do with childcare to flood the market,

make it easier to train as registered child minders, look at

wrap-around school childcare. By flooding the market will child

cautious we will reduce the childcare costs, and Government

shouldn't keep subsidising that. Childcare is one part of the

problem. You must be scandalised by this, when you hear the moving

stories of the children, talking about what it is like, they have

got working parents, who have been told get a job and you can get

yourselves out of poverty, and it isn't happening. They are full of

dreams and aspirations and hopes and ambitions, I don't know whether

they will be realised, I hope they are? I do too, we have been at the,

CSJ, all over the country listening to families like these. The

interesting thing tonight is what we see as a an aspiration, hope and

belief in the power of work, even though it is difficult, work is

still what people pursue. What is the alternative to work if you want

to lift yourself out of poverty and be self-reliant. There is no

alternative. It is tough right now, but work is the surest route out of

poverty. There is no doubt about that. Do you agree with that?

Absolutely. The other thing we saw in the film, from Precious and

others, is the power of education, the recognition of the need to get

a good education to earn the money. We are in an ever-more competitive

global economy, we know we are losing jobs every day at the

unskilled level. So the message, which I'm delighted to see had got

through to the children there, that needs to go to parents, is that you

might have been able to leave school without much on the way of

qualifications and skills, get a good job, support a family, have a

rich and fulfiling life. This generation, increasingly, isn't

able to do so. Getting education right, making sure that the 42%

last year of children who took GCSEs, 42% of them didn't get five

good GCSEs including English and math, which we know triggers a move

on to education or employment. are you going to do about it?

have to intervene early, there is cross-party agreement on this.

Perhaps what happened, and it was understandable, part of the times,

but huge amounts of money were thrown in the direction, by the

last Government, I don't think, they would accept in many ways,

that the long-term routes weren't tackled as effectively as we would

like. Now this Government has commissioned Graham allen, a Labour

MP, and Frank Field, in this area, looking at early intervention, and

the causes of poverty. And the Early Years Intervention will be

set up hopefully soon, and look at getting the evidence on the right

interventions to support. The Government is doing things like

extending free nursery education to two-year-olds, trying to make sure

that the children, who all too often from poor families, arrive at

school is and they are not able to learn, they are not school-ready,

and their confidence is knocked. And children who are born poor end

up not getting the qualifications. These problems reinforce each other.

Work is a key way out of poverty, we all agree. Not for those kids?

It is if their parents get a chance to work and they get a decent

income. Part of the problem is they go to work without a decent income.

Also, in terms it of getting the more earnings, the more benefits

they lose. We have to skew the system, we have to pay for more

childcare. We have a mix of prokblems. They reinforce each

other. If you are at home, and the energy prices are high, you put

their children to bed and they do it in bed. They are so cold. You

send their friends home because you can't afford to have them round to

cook them a meal. These kids get much less chance at school, they

don't succeed at school, they don't get your educational benefits.

have to make work pay, we have to reform benefit, which is happening.

The Universal Credit is an aim to make sure you don't get this

disproportionate loss, when you do more hours, so many people would

get a job and find themselves worse off. You know about this? I think

what a lot of people are forgetting, I'm going to work and paying

national insurance and tax, I should be, therefore, entitled to

support, to get my child looked after properly. But the other issue

is, as well, once they hit first year in Scotland, there no

childcare provision at all. Which leaves the children, at a

vulnerable age, to become latch-key kids. That is not acceptable.

really important to recognise that, whilst Universal Credit, perhaps is

far from perfect, what the Government is doing is making sure

work does pay. The new system will prevent many more of these cases. I

think right now we have a broken benefits system, and work doesn't

reward, and people on benefits are penalised by taking work, that is

perverse. But the universal benefits system has been a long

time in gestation, and will take a long time to get properly grounded.

Those children, those 8, 10, 12, 13, 14-year-old children, living in

poverty, in this country, making calculation about what they can

afford to eat on their called free school lunch, and having a chip

because it fills them up. As opposed to fruit. Those children,

they are not going to be rescued, are they? They will be, because the

new system will help their parents to make sure that work pays them.

Interestingly you mentioned the point, let me finish the point. The

interesting point about how we measure poverty in this country is

a big debate, we heard it in the clip earlier. It is madness how the

measure is set. What we see, under the previous Government, for

example, �150 billion on tax credits, for a 1%age point

reduction in the -- 1% point reduction in the poverty. You were

part that have team, and it didn't work? It did work, we lifted a

million out of poverty. I actually support the Universal Credit, I'm

here as Save the Children, not the previous Government. I think you

have to put money into it. You have an extra �3 billion secured in

difficult times. If we put some more money towards childcare, we

could help a million children. Part of the problem with the Universal

Credit, as it is being set up, and we don't know exactly how it will

work yet. As you earn more and you begin to bring money in you will

lose your benefits. That is the opposite of what it is about, it is

about keeping more of your benefits, which is the �3 billion. On

childcare they are adding an extra �300 million into childcare and

more will receive it. At the moment you have to work 16 hours a week to

get childcare cover. If this is the case, why so many people like

Tracey and those in the film? have a broken system now, the

benefit coming to an area near you, will help. In the boom years, not

the post-recession time, the children in the most severe poverty,

under the last Government, increased in number. That's not all

just to do with failure of policy. There has been a change in the

labour market and increasing challenges there. We have to get

the long-term conditions right. I think the Government is moving in

the right direction. People at home might be saying, the poor you have

always with you, there are always going to be poor people, but what

is the consequence of children failing to see their aspirations

realised, their dreams realised. The sense that you can't do. What

happens? It is tragic. And the social cost is appalling, in this

country, in an economy, that is relatively still very prosperous,

it is completely wrong and an inJews at this. How we measure that

poverty is really important. Take the tax credit point, I'm not

making a party political point, that �150 billion that went in for

the 1% reduk. How would the money have been used, it would have been

important to give it to the charities and get ahead of the

family breakdown, reform the welfare system and drugs and

alcohol. So many of those things make a difference to how much

poverty people are in. We will long-term make more difference than

anything else. Tracey, how do you keep a sense of dream and ambition

and aspiration? Adam does that for me. He bolsters everything that

goes on in my life. If it wasn't for his attitude, then I don't

think I would have returned to work. The thing is, with children, they

are there, they will support each other, without doubt. When you

become an adult, it becomes political, and it is just, the

wrong people are picked on, in my point of view. It is easy to take

it from people that are already down, to kick them while they are

down, it is easier that way. The people who don't vote any more, I

don't really wonder why that is now. It is because they don't feel as

though they are getting anything back at all. I did work before I

had ar Adam, and it was mental health issues that me dig my own

hole, that I haven't been able to get back out of financially. Now,

what I did was, I flitted from the Jobcentre to the Benefits Agency,

the Department of Work and Pensions. And nothing happened, I went to One

Parent Family in Scotland, within a year, I had a job. Why haven't the

Government adopted a more holistic method to deal with all these

issues, that is my question. Thank you very much. The summer

holiday is over, time for the next installment of the disaster story

that is the European single currency.

Tomorrow, and I'm sorry if this sounds familiar, we will hear how

the European Central Bank will save the euro, or possibly not. The fate

of the currency is one of the subjects to be tackled in a elect

tue at the London Stock Exchange, by one of the most respected

economists in the world, Larry Summers, Bill Clinton's Treasury

Secretary, and Barack Obama's Chief Economic Advisor.

It is not hard to see why Barack Obama wanted Larry Summers at his

side, at a time that he called a time of great peril for America.

Summers is used to being close to power, he was economic advise Tory

Ronald Regan in the 1980, and back in the White House a decade later,

with Bill Clinton. He rows through the ranks, and many say his zeal in

the US financial markets helped paved the way for the crisis.

Summers went back to acedemia, as President of Harvard, just in time

to get caught up in one of the early disputes about who really

came up with the idea for Facebook. I don't think you are in any

position to make that call. I was the US Treasury Secretary, I'm in

some position to make that call. Hollywood's take on the Facebook

story portrayed Summers as dismissive, and most of all,

arrogant. He said pretty accurate. The courts are at your disposelia,

anything else I can do for you? The Republicans now have the

economic record of Obama, and those, like Summers, who advised him, in

their cross hairs. American growth, at 2%, may look rosy, compared with

Britain's double-dip recession, but unemployment lies at more than 8%.

Only one President has ever been re-elected with jobless figures

like. That A little earlier I spoke to Larry

Summers, from his current lair, at Harvard. It is yet another decision

day for the euro tomorrow, what is the minimum that needs to be heard?

I think there needs to be a very clear statement that what needs to

be done will be done to ensure the continued availability of finance,

particularly to pain and Italy. There needs to be a clear

commitment on the part of the ECB to do what is necessary there needs

to be a political recognition from the nations of northern Europe,

that failure is not an option. that has been the requirement from

the start of this crisis, hasn't it, to restore confidence, and make

people believe that Governments, if necessary, the European Central

Bank, and the rest, will save this currency, will do whatever it takes.

And time after time they have failed to instill confidence. Do

you think it's been well managed, this crisis? This is surely not

going to be a happy chapter in international monetary history. I

have often compared this to the Vietnam War. During the Vietnam War

in the United States, American policy makers always did what was

necessary to avoid immediate collapse, and never did what was

necessary to offer a prospect of a long-running solution. And

eventually, the policy collapsed around this. Let me ask you,

honestly, do you believe in a year's time, there will still be 17

members of the eurozone? There can't be any guarantees, we don't

know what will happen in Greece. We don't know what political

conditions are going to permit, in northern Europe. We don't know what

will happen with respect to uncertain banking systems. But I

think there is a proper judgment that, having made the momentous

commitment to the euro, the right path forward is to try to live with

it and do what's necessary to make it work. If the euro were to

collapse, how big a deal would that be for the world economy? In ways

that that are more negative than has been true historically, and in

ways that are larger than is true for some decade now. The fate of

the global economy over the next several years, rests heavily with

Europe. Europe doesn't have the capacity to be the propulsion, that

creates a rapid global expansion. But Europe does have the capacity

to be the shock that brings the global economy to a screeching halt.

It is the reason why so much of economic and financial diplomacy

has centered, including the active involvement of the President of the

United States, on Europe over the last year.

You mentioned the President of the United States, when asked about his

own handling of the economy, and what grade he would give himself.

He said he would give himself an "incomplete" grade. What would you

give him? I think that's right. I think there was a real prospect of

a situation like the US Great Depression, in 2009. If you looked

at what happened when the President came into office, employment was

falling more rapidly, GDP was falling more rapidly, stock prices

were falling more rapidly. All of it, exports, world trade was

falling more rapidly all of it was falling more rapidly than in the

fall of 1929, and yet, for all the problems we have had a very

different path. With nothing like the kind of complete collapse of

the economy that the US saw after 1929. That's because of what the

President did. What grade would you give George Osborne for his

management of the economy? Economic performance has been considerably

better in the United States over the last several years than it has

been in the United Kingdom. And I believe that relates centrally to a

strategic choice, the United States made that, that the British

authorities did not make. That was the strategic choice to pursue a

strategy of fiscal expansion in the short run, to grow the economy,

followed by a commitment to long run fiscal consolidation. In

contrast, in Britain, it has been all fiscal consolidation, all the

time, and I think it is something that history will not look back on

kindly. Sounds to me as if you were giving him something like a D minus

in terms of grades? As we pass the mid-term exam, there is real cause

for concern about failure. Given what is happening in the British

economy. It's life, Jim, but not as we know

it, as Dr Spock never said. The evidence of what is already

happening to the Arctic, subjects is may be too late to do anything

about climate change. We will just have to adapt, big time. It is more

than this year's awful summer, because scientists have told

Newsnight, that the disappearance of Arctic ice, is effectively

doubling mankind's contribution to global warming, which rather raises

the question of why we should bother. Not driving to the shops

any more. We will be discussing that with Peter Lilley, who has

written a new report, which can be summarised as Don't Panic, and the

leader of the Green Party in a few moments. We have known for some

time that the Arctic ice is melting at a rapid rate. New figures we

have been given, subjects the impact of that melt is doubling

mankind's contribution to climate change. Now, when we first saw

these beautiful shots of earth from space, curtesy of the Apollo as

trau not, it triggered the green -- astronauts, it triggered the green

movement. But that view has changed. This is what the Arctic looked like

in the summer of 1979, and this is what it looked like in 2007, half

of the ice had gone. One of Britain's leading ice scientists

predict all of the ice could be gone at the North Pole, in summer,

within a few years. Well this year there has been another big melt,

they are still a few days away from the official minimum.

Professor Peter Wadhams has spent the summer on the Arctic ice, using

lasers and rob robot submarines to get a picture of what is left. He

has also taken part in a BBC Two documentary series, broadcast next

month, called Operation Iceberg. On an area, twice the size of

Manhatten, where he had to dodge the odd polar bear. He has seen for

himself the dramatic decline in sea ice. 30 years ago, then there was

typically about eight million square kilometres of ice, left in

the Arctic in the summer. And by 2007, five years ago, that had had

halved, it had gone down to four million. This year it has gone down

below that, and heading for oblivion. And the ice is also

getting thinner. The volume of ice at the pole, naturally goes up in

the winter and down in the summer. It has been declining over the last

30 years. It is now at the lowest level since records began.

Estimates that the North Pole could be ice-free in summer in a few

years, contrasts with the official view of the Met Office. That the

Arctic will not be completely free of ice before the summers of 2030.

But it's the effect of losing all that white ice, that matters.

The polar icecap acts as a giant parasol, reflecting sunlight back

into the atmosphere, in what is known as the albedo effect. 30

years ago, the ice looked like this. The Arctic ice covered 2% of the

earth's surface, reflecting most of the sun's ray. But half of that ice

has now gone. And open water absorbs far more of the sun's

energy. Professor Wadhams told us, parts of

the Arctic Ocean are now as warm in summer, as the North Sea in winter.

Over that 1% of the surface of the earth, you are replacing a bright

surface, which reflects nearly all the radiation falling on it, by a

dark surface, which absorbs nearly all. The difference, the extra

radiation that is absorbed, from our calculation, the equivalent of

20 years of additional carbon dioxide, being added by man. If his

calculation are correct, that means, over recent decades, the melting

icecap has put as much heat into the system as all the C067892 we

have generated at that time. If the ice continues to decline at the

current rate, it could play a bigger role than greenhouse gases.

Professored Wadhams suggests there are uncertainties, cloud cover over

the Arctic could change, and help reflect back some of the sun's

radiation. But then, another greenhouse gas, me tain, currently

trapped in the Arctic methane, currently trapped in the Arctic,

could be released and make matters worse. What does it mean for us?

could end up with more of the kind of weather that deluged so much of

June and July. As the ice melts, this pumps a lot of heat into the

lower atmosphere. That has an important effect on the jetstream,

and the storm track that impinges on Europe, and changes the weather

time scales. Some studies suggest there is increased wet summers over

the UK as the ice melts. Other suggests the winter weather could

be more snowy and cold, due to the ice decline. It all raises

questions, for both sides of the debate about how best to respond to

the changing climate. Do we need another new Manhatten project,

ambitious engineering skeefpls, such as mirrors in space, or

artificial seeding of clouds to keep the panel cool. Does it

reinforce calls to save the Arctic, by cutting carbon emissions.

The very question we want to discuss with Natalie Bennett, the

new leader of the Green Party, and Peter Lilley, who has written a

robust rebuttal on the stern committee findings. If that

analysis is correct, about what has happened to the Arctic, and what

the consequence is. There is precious little point in making any

of the adjustments to our lifestyle that you in the Green Party seem to

be suggesting? Not at all. We can still make a big impact in cutting

carbon emissions. And we can also act in ways that make society

better and stronger. We can invest in the future of our society, we

must do it now. We just saw the figures in terms of the ice melt,

we need to act and now. If the effect of the melting icecap, or

melted icecap, is, as is suggested, that will make dam

Damn all difference? -- damn all difference? Let's wait, we want to

bring industries and farming back to Britain. That is entirely

another point to climate change? need to shorten the supply chain to

use less fossil fuels, so no carbon emissions. If the damage is already

done, what is the point? We can reduce the further damage if we act

now and immediate low. We need to do that. I was told to come on the

programme and not discuss the science, to take the UN inter-

governmental panel on climate change assessment as a correct pro-

jex on what the likely trends were going to be -- projection on what

the likely trends were going to be. You presented something that

purports to be new evidence, which contains something new, it is not

peer reviewed by a well known alarmist, and bun come, compared

with the IPCC. The IPCC's prediction is this they say sea ice

is predicted to shrink in the Arctic and Antarctic, and in all

scenario, in some projections, the late summer ice disappears almost

entirely by the latter part of the 21st century. They present a graph

of all the different projections, none of them shows it melting

before the year 2070, on a regular basis in the summer. It used to

melt in other times n the 1930s it was warmer in the Antarctic. We

have a contentious piece of filming. It is the BBC's policy, not to

broadcast anyone who thinks the IPCC is excessive. You do think

climate change is happening? I do, I want to work on the IPCC science,

not something concocted by the BBC, in an alarmist fashion, which is

not peer reviewed. We're not sufficiently co-ordinated to manage

to concoct something like that? did, it just had. It was a report

printed by the science editor, who -- presented by a science editor

who interviewed someone who probably knows more than three of

us. You know better than him? know what the IPCC says, and I

think their assessment of the science is better than Professor

Wadhams, who is a well known alarmist. We know that consistently,

all of the indicators of climate change, or global warning, have

moved much faster than scientists predicted. Everything has been at

the upper end of projection, or on the projections. The fact is,

really, Mr Lilley, what you represent, are the last throws of a

dying argument. The -- gros of a dying argument. The geological

Association of America, last year, entitled its conference, as being

about the anthropist scene, we have created a new geological era.

is no dispute about the two of you with weather anything is change

anything the climate. What needs to be done or what can be done?

think we need to project forward, what is likely to happen, on the

basis of the best scientific evidence. And the IPCC provides

that, not so much BBC person, a bit like. That then work out the

economics, and only do things where the costs are less than the benefit.

That is what we ought to be doing. I have assessed the Stern Report,

and looked at that, it says even on the worst scenario that depict, if

we take the action that he proposes, the costs will exceed the benefits

for the first century. We are talking of doing something where

any returns are going to accrue to people more than a century hence.

Should we be going that, the Green Party may think so. Do you want us

all to stop flying in the Green Party now? No, we don't want you to

start crying. That is not what Stern proposes,

let as be sensible, you are being unfair to the Green Party. What we

would like to do is relocalise our industries, bring farming back into

the UK. Stop flying peas from Peru and beans from Kenya. We want jobs,

we want to bring industries back into the UK. All very much positive

for the UK, and are good to reducing the carbon emissions at

the same time. We can insulate people's homes, so people have

warmer and more comfortable homes and and lower fuel bills. You think

its benefits way outweigh the costs? We can bring a more healthy

life. Timing is key here? Let's look at the situation of the green

business. The green economy now accounts for about 9% of the

British economy. That is about the same as the finance industries. 5%

growth rate every year, year on year. A third of the growth in the

UK, last year, came from the green industries. What do you say to

that? Let's, if we spend lots on supsidies, we will get a growth in

those subsidised industries, at the expense ift other countries paying

taxes. If you spent a lot of money building wind turbines, you will

get employment in erecting them. You will get less employment in

erecting gas turbines that are more efficient, because you are not

producing those. Let's leave it there. I do want to resent the idea

we should impoverish the people of keenia and Peru, by stopping