:00:07. > :00:13.Tonight, we are in Portsmouth, a city that has built warships for 500
:00:14. > :00:18.years and last week was told ship building would end with the loss of
:00:19. > :00:27.almost 1000 jobs. Welcome to Question Time.
:00:28. > :00:34.Welcome to you at home, to our audience here, and to our panel.
:00:35. > :00:40.From the Cabinet, the Liberal Democrat energy Secretary, Ed Davey.
:00:41. > :00:45.Labour's shadow competition minister, Stella Creasy. Margaret
:00:46. > :00:51.Thatcher's former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson. The leader
:00:52. > :00:54.of the GMB, Paul Kenny. And from Isuzu Truck 's, the first woman to
:00:55. > :01:14.run a UK truck company, Nikki King. We have, in effect, three
:01:15. > :01:21.generations of politicians here for you to tax with your questions. A
:01:22. > :01:26.question from Mark Green. Was Portsmouth dockyard sacrificed to
:01:27. > :01:33.keep Scotland in the UK? Does anybody else have views on this? I
:01:34. > :01:38.think it is a terrible decision for Portsmouth and Britain, and really
:01:39. > :01:41.bad for the Navy. If Scotland is independent, where will they build
:01:42. > :01:53.their ships? The Royal Navy will have to buy foreign ships. A
:01:54. > :01:58.terrible decision. Anybody else? Just in response to that, being a
:01:59. > :02:03.Scot myself and living in Portsmouth and worried about the impact of ship
:02:04. > :02:06.building stopping, you need to realise there are a lot of Scottish
:02:07. > :02:13.people who do not want independence, and chances are it
:02:14. > :02:25.will not happen. Well, what I would like to discuss
:02:26. > :02:30.is if BAE themselves took over and moved to Portsmouth, what was their
:02:31. > :02:33.plan for the future? To go up to Scotland, where they have very
:02:34. > :02:43.little shipbuilding experience in small ships? And you, with the
:02:44. > :02:47.beard. Ship builders do not have a job for life by divine right. This
:02:48. > :02:51.is about the government ordering, or not ordering, ships for the royal
:02:52. > :02:59.navy. We are still in island nation, we import 95% of our food,
:03:00. > :03:02.fuel, oil, daily, by C. The decision has been made to dramatically reduce
:03:03. > :03:06.the size of the Royal Navy, which is why you guys have not got any job
:03:07. > :03:10.is. You cannot expect to have a job for life, all the time you have a
:03:11. > :03:19.government decimating the size of the Royal Navy. The original
:03:20. > :03:24.question was, was Portsmouth dockyard sacrificed to keep Scotland
:03:25. > :03:30.in the UK? As we know, the work is going to Scotland. It is difficult
:03:31. > :03:35.when there are people who have lost jobs, families who are worried. It
:03:36. > :03:39.is not just 1000 skilled workers who will be losing their jobs, but the
:03:40. > :03:43.knock-on jobs connected to that. It is extraordinary difficult, but it
:03:44. > :03:47.is not to do with the Scottish referendum. There are some difficult
:03:48. > :03:53.decisions in a ship building and for maybe ship building. Remember, there
:03:54. > :03:58.are 800 jobs being lost in Scottish shipyards as well. What we have to
:03:59. > :04:02.do as a government is to do as much as we possibly can to help the
:04:03. > :04:06.people who have lost their jobs, and to help the economy here in
:04:07. > :04:09.Portsmouth. That is why we are going to invest ?100 million in the
:04:10. > :04:13.harbour, so when the aircraft carriers come here, they can be
:04:14. > :04:16.based here and we will have those jobs, and this can continue to be
:04:17. > :04:22.the home, the proud home of the Royal Navy. And then we need to do
:04:23. > :04:25.more. That is why there is a city deal being struck with Portsmouth
:04:26. > :04:30.and Southampton to unlock land that the Ministry of Defence had, so more
:04:31. > :04:34.business can be created in future, more homes can be built, because
:04:35. > :04:39.they are needed, too. We are going to try and do as much as we can. But
:04:40. > :04:44.I am clear, this is a difficult decision, and it is not going to be
:04:45. > :04:50.easy for Portsmouth. But as a government, we are going to be there
:04:51. > :04:53.to help Portsmouth. When your Defence Secretary said he did not
:04:54. > :04:57.anticipate the UK would wish to place orders for ships outside the
:04:58. > :05:00.UK, and it is something people in Scotland need to think about very
:05:01. > :05:06.carefully, was that not a threat about removing this building from
:05:07. > :05:09.Scotland and returning it to Portsmouth, if Scotland votes for
:05:10. > :05:17.independence? If not, what did it mean? I understand it is a legal
:05:18. > :05:20.requirement. If the ships were built in independent Scotland, the tender
:05:21. > :05:23.would have to be across the whole of the European Union, and the rules
:05:24. > :05:28.say that you can have a defence tender in your own country because
:05:29. > :05:32.of security and fence interests, but as soon as those ships are built
:05:33. > :05:35.outside, you have to offer it to all of the defence industry across the
:05:36. > :05:46.European Union. He was stating a legal fact. Paul Kenny. I think we
:05:47. > :05:51.need a dose of reality. In the last few days, the last week we have seen
:05:52. > :05:55.about 10,000 jobs go out of our economy. The jobs at Portsmouth and
:05:56. > :06:00.in Scotland are part of that pattern. I want to say this about
:06:01. > :06:04.it. You cannot turn on and off highly skilled jobs, about building
:06:05. > :06:09.ships, to protect them island nation. I will pick up the point
:06:10. > :06:17.made by the gentleman in the audience. We have decimated the
:06:18. > :06:22.Royal Navy. We have decimated it. We now have an entire surface fleet of
:06:23. > :06:28.18 ship 's. We could not fight a Cold war, let alone go around the
:06:29. > :06:32.world and protect interests. We could not fight an exclusion zone
:06:33. > :06:40.around the Isle of Wight. We have run our nation into the ground. 1000
:06:41. > :06:47.highly skilled jobs from Portsmouth. Another factory down the road,
:06:48. > :06:52.absolutely decimating this area. I listened carefully to what Ed Davey
:06:53. > :06:59.said and I will pick him up on it. 18 months ago, our union pleaded,
:07:00. > :07:02.almost begged to the government, not to give the contract for ?500
:07:03. > :07:10.million of ship welding work to Korea. These are ships, four ships,
:07:11. > :07:15.that service the Royal Navy when they are at the. Four ships, and the
:07:16. > :07:19.government, and the minister at the time was not you, but Philip
:07:20. > :07:26.Hammond, gave that contract to Korea. And all they had to do was to
:07:27. > :07:29.designate those ships as warlike. Put a catapult on the front. That is
:07:30. > :07:36.something the French might have done to protect their ship holding. Was
:07:37. > :07:42.it done on a money basis? They said no British company bid for those
:07:43. > :07:45.jobs. There were not effectively any bids from British companies because
:07:46. > :07:53.they were told it was going to Korea. That is the reality. If they
:07:54. > :07:57.had been deemed as warlike, because they service the Royal Navy, the
:07:58. > :08:00.truth of the matter is that that would have been work which would
:08:01. > :08:05.have fitted into these yards and kept the jobs here and in Scotland.
:08:06. > :08:07.This is not a battle between Portsmouth and Scotland because a
:08:08. > :08:12.lot of people in Scotland will lose jobs. This is about proper support
:08:13. > :08:16.for the Royal Navy and getting jobs that can be put, keeping skills in
:08:17. > :08:20.this country here. You could have kept those ships in the UK. In the
:08:21. > :08:26.same way that Mr Hammond sent rail carriages to do Germany instead of
:08:27. > :08:29.giving them to Derby, he sent those ships to career, instead of keeping
:08:30. > :08:31.British skilled workers in British yards and keeping our Royal Navy
:08:32. > :08:47.afloat. Ed Davey, I will come back to you
:08:48. > :08:52.later on those points. I run a small ship building yard in Portsmouth,
:08:53. > :08:55.very small. We are very proud of our export record. We do not borrow any
:08:56. > :09:00.money and the government has never helped us. Our landlord has now told
:09:01. > :26:54.When you actually look at the we have to
:26:55. > :26:57.When you actually look at the evidence, it was cold-blooded
:26:58. > :27:09.murder, full-stop. I do not think there was any question that he
:27:10. > :27:13.should be held accountable. She is absolutely right and I think this is
:27:14. > :27:21.accepted by the Royal Marines themselves. Gillian Thompson, who
:27:22. > :27:24.served in the Falklands, said that he was not going to stand around
:27:25. > :27:30.bad-mouthing him, I do not condemn him, he is like a member of the
:27:31. > :27:33.family who broke the law. What do you think of the Daily Telegraph's
:27:34. > :27:40.petition to have the judge show leniency? Well, it might well be a
:27:41. > :27:52.good journalistic stunt, but it does not alter my view, which is exactly
:27:53. > :27:59.the same as that already expressed. That murder is murder? Yes, and
:28:00. > :28:02.there were no circumstances to change that verdict. It was
:28:03. > :28:09.thoroughly done, it was a prosper procedure, and I'm afraid there were
:28:10. > :28:12.not any mitigating circumstances. One of the major differences between
:28:13. > :28:15.the Royal Marines and the Taliban are that the Royal Marines work
:28:16. > :28:20.within the parameters of the law, and the Taliban does not, so what
:28:21. > :28:24.that Royal Marines in question did with one shot from his pistol was to
:28:25. > :28:29.blur the lines between what is right, and what the Royal Marines to
:28:30. > :28:40.nine times out of ten, or even more, and what the Taliban do on a daily
:28:41. > :28:44.basis. If it was your son that was at the end of that bullet, Howard
:28:45. > :28:51.you feel about that situation test murder is murder and there is no
:28:52. > :28:57.justification for it. Does anybody disagree? I would turn that question
:28:58. > :29:01.around, what if it was your son who had been out in Afghanistan for six
:29:02. > :29:06.months, and they had seen their comrades' arms and legs hanging from
:29:07. > :29:11.trees as we do not know the stress they were under. I think to condemn
:29:12. > :29:16.him is awful. And he was out there in our name. I would agree if you
:29:17. > :29:21.had not read the dialogue that was recorded at the time. There is that
:29:22. > :29:25.point about the question about the incredible stress that we put our
:29:26. > :29:31.Armed Forces under in the most difficult scenarios, but let's be
:29:32. > :29:36.clear about it, that standard. How do we hold up the moral line
:29:37. > :29:40.effectively if what we do is to execute injured prisoners? If the
:29:41. > :29:45.boot was on the other foot, we rightly would be condemning whoever
:29:46. > :29:51.did that to our personnel, irrespective of what the opposition
:29:52. > :30:07.is, you do not execute people like that in cold blood, you just do not
:30:08. > :30:09.do it. We have just had Remembrance Sunday, a hugely important day for
:30:10. > :30:13.the families of those who serve, because we ask them to make the
:30:14. > :30:16.ultimate sacrifice. One of the reasons we do that is to uphold
:30:17. > :30:22.those values and freedoms, so we must consistent about that. My worry
:30:23. > :30:26.about this case is that it has the potential to sustain the good name
:30:27. > :30:29.of so many people. I have friends and family who serve and I'm the
:30:30. > :30:34.president of the Royal British Legion in my local community. I feel
:30:35. > :30:38.passionately about the importance of defending the good name of those who
:30:39. > :30:42.serve overseas. Part of the way we do that is that when those people
:30:43. > :30:47.transgress we say, it is not acceptable, not any different. You
:30:48. > :30:56.are right, sir, murder is murder. Another question. Ed Davey, I am
:30:57. > :31:00.sorry. I am going to agree, but I want to make the point following
:31:01. > :31:04.from what Stella was saying, that the Royal Marines have a proud
:31:05. > :31:07.history. They have done this country some magnificent achievements. One
:31:08. > :31:11.of the reasons we have to see this process through, allow the evidence
:31:12. > :31:15.to be judged and the sentencing to go through is because of that proud
:31:16. > :31:20.history of the Royal Marines. Because we do not want the
:31:21. > :31:23.reputation of the Royal Marines besmirched. Getting justice seem to
:31:24. > :31:29.be done is the best way to uphold the proud tradition of the Royal
:31:30. > :31:34.Marines. Obviously, with this individual case it is right that
:31:35. > :31:37.justice is done. But if we are talking about murder is murder, what
:31:38. > :31:46.about the civilians killed when we bombed Baghdad and Libya?
:31:47. > :31:49.If this is murder, and I believe it is, what do they think about the
:31:50. > :31:55.drone operators that kill hundreds of people every day? And the
:31:56. > :32:01.civilians who are killed? Does anybody want to come in on that. On
:32:02. > :32:06.the drones, it is a serious question we have to face up to. I think, if
:32:07. > :32:10.the Americans keep using drones in the way they have been doing, I
:32:11. > :32:16.think everyone is going to say this is setting a very, very dangerous
:32:17. > :32:19.precedent. And I think the UN and the international community has to
:32:20. > :32:26.look very seriously at these weapons, that they are potentially
:32:27. > :32:32.transgressing sovereignty. In the case we know about, the sovereignty
:32:33. > :32:37.of Pakistan. And while drones can be, if they are not used in a
:32:38. > :32:41.military way, they can be used for surveillance very effectively, which
:32:42. > :32:43.is how the British use them. There are serious issues on the
:32:44. > :32:49.international law of the use of drones. The American government is
:32:50. > :32:53.beginning to look at that. The point is, how do you compare this one
:32:54. > :32:58.Royal Marines killing the injured member of the Taliban and, one must
:32:59. > :33:04.assume, with what we know are hundreds of killings of women and
:33:05. > :33:11.children in Afghanistan and Pakistan by drones? And we just say, well, we
:33:12. > :33:17.ought to look at that. There are lots of strict rules of
:33:18. > :33:20.international engagement and conflict. My concern with drones is
:33:21. > :33:25.that international law has not caught up with them, and it must do,
:33:26. > :33:31.so that people using this technology actually have to abide by the law.
:33:32. > :33:36.The Royal Marines do. What do you mean by abide by the law? The law is
:33:37. > :33:40.not being applied to those. The law has not caught up with the
:33:41. > :33:46.technology, and I'm calling for it to do that. But until then you can
:33:47. > :33:51.use them with impunity? We should not, and we don't. I do not know
:33:52. > :33:56.enough about how the Americans use them. The Americans in the Armed
:33:57. > :34:00.Forces are saying we have got to make sure we do not set a precedent
:34:01. > :34:05.so other countries start doing what we are doing with drones, because
:34:06. > :34:08.that would be very dangerous. Killing innocent civilians is wrong,
:34:09. > :34:13.if it is wrong, it is wrong universally, and we should have the
:34:14. > :34:17.courage to say that. I do not find that a difficult problem. I think
:34:18. > :34:20.the difficulty is that the drones are getting away from us because the
:34:21. > :34:25.Americans are now working on robot drones. They do not even have people
:34:26. > :34:29.at the end of the TV screens guiding them. They are preplanned when they
:34:30. > :34:34.take off, and the basic mission is to kill people. They do not even
:34:35. > :34:38.have the possibility of aborting the thing if they look and see lots of
:34:39. > :34:46.civilians instead of the supposed target. Simon Frost, please. Is
:34:47. > :34:52.Typhoon Haiyan further evidence of mankind creating climate change? If
:34:53. > :35:04.so, what can we do to reduce the risk of further disaster? There is
:35:05. > :35:11.no connection at all between this typhoon and climate change. If you
:35:12. > :35:18.look at tropical is, you will find there has been no increase in the
:35:19. > :35:24.amount, or the strength of tropical storms for the past 100 years.
:35:25. > :35:29.Indeed, this year, Typhoon Haiyan is terrible, appalling, but I am afraid
:35:30. > :35:34.these things happen in the tropics. In the Atlantic hurricane season,
:35:35. > :35:42.this year has been one of the quietest seasons in the Atlantic
:35:43. > :35:48.within living memory. It is the quietest, although they predicted
:35:49. > :35:52.there would be more for 30 years or more. If you look at what the
:35:53. > :35:57.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says, recognised as an
:35:58. > :36:01.authority on this, they say there is absolutely no connection between
:36:02. > :36:10.so-called climate change and tropicals or is, all tropical of all
:36:11. > :36:16.kinds. -- tropicals or is. This is a scare which people latch onto but
:36:17. > :36:20.there is no scientific merit in it, no statistical merit in it. There
:36:21. > :36:30.has been no increase in extreme weather events at all, and this is
:36:31. > :36:38.fact. Ed Davey, do you agree? I am glad to see that Lord Lawson is now
:36:39. > :36:42.praising the IPCC. On this question, I think he is absolutely
:36:43. > :36:46.right that there is no evidence that climate change is increasing the
:36:47. > :36:51.frequency of tropical storms. There is evidence that it is increasing
:36:52. > :36:56.the impact of the intensity of those storms. And this is how it is doing
:36:57. > :37:01.it. Sea levels are rising. That is a fact and I hope Nigel Lawson will
:37:02. > :37:04.agree. That is happening because of climate change because the ice caps
:37:05. > :37:10.and glaciers are melting. With higher sea levels, islands like they
:37:11. > :37:13.have in the Philippines and low-lying coastal areas are far more
:37:14. > :37:18.vulnerable to these storms than they ever used to be. At is the real
:37:19. > :37:23.danger of climate change. It is not always increasing extreme weather
:37:24. > :37:27.events, although the IPCC says that in some cases they think it is, but
:37:28. > :37:30.it is making these areas far more vulnerable. That is why these
:37:31. > :37:35.disasters are on a scale we have never seen before. We have to take
:37:36. > :37:39.climate change extremely seriously. We have to lead by making sure we
:37:40. > :37:44.are taking measures, investing in renewables, low carbon and energy
:37:45. > :37:48.efficiency. Next week I'm going to the global climate change talks in
:37:49. > :37:55.Warsaw and working to sign a global deal in 2015. The world has to take
:37:56. > :37:58.action. The evidence says it is more urgent than ever before and I hope
:37:59. > :38:03.that Nigel, when he looks at the evidence from the IPCC, which he is
:38:04. > :38:09.now quoting in favour, I hope he will realise the world have to take
:38:10. > :38:17.action on climate change. -- the world has to. Isn't this so
:38:18. > :38:20.confusing? One minute I am told I have two save my rubbish and the
:38:21. > :38:26.next minute I am told it all goes to the same landfill site. One minute I
:38:27. > :38:29.am told if we do not save the planet it will die in 20 years, and
:38:30. > :38:33.somebody else says it is just the natural life of the planet. I wish
:38:34. > :38:39.somebody would tell me exactly what is going on and then I could make a
:38:40. > :38:43.decision. It is so difficult. I find it very confusing. I am in the truck
:38:44. > :38:53.business. You will probably agree that the motor industry has done an
:38:54. > :38:59.awful lot for climate change. Sorry, done an awful lot for climate
:39:00. > :39:03.change? It has cleaned up its act, enormously. One of my trucks parked
:39:04. > :39:08.in Calcutta, the air coming out of the exhaust pipe is cleaner than the
:39:09. > :39:13.air going in. If you look around Calcutta, you will see thousands of
:39:14. > :39:18.vehicles that are ten or 15 or 20 years old. I am not quite sure what
:39:19. > :39:25.this little Europe can do when there is so much of the rest of the world
:39:26. > :39:35.that needs to come up to speed. Stella Creasy. Nigel, I hope you
:39:36. > :39:38.will take up the offer made by the Filipino delegate to the climate
:39:39. > :39:43.change conference. I don't know if you saw his impassioned speech that
:39:44. > :39:48.made a lot of people cry, about his view that there was a connection. I
:39:49. > :39:53.take the scientific evidence. The evidence shows there is a 95% chance
:39:54. > :39:58.that climate change is man-made. That means there is a 5% chance that
:39:59. > :40:03.it is not, and it is right that we have a public policy debate about
:40:04. > :40:06.that risk ratio. My sense is that 95% is a pretty good standard to
:40:07. > :40:11.start thinking about what we can do to address that. That gentleman was
:40:12. > :40:14.talking about trying to take dead relatives out of the rubble of
:40:15. > :40:18.buildings and dealing with the consequences. We are not immune to
:40:19. > :40:21.our own responsibilities about things we can do to create a more
:40:22. > :40:27.sustainable way of living, and I do not want to take the risk that we
:40:28. > :40:33.might be in that 5%, when the 95% of independent scientific evidence,
:40:34. > :40:38.when I hear you talk, Nigel, opinion meets fact. The fact is that climate
:40:39. > :40:41.change is happening. We can have different debates about how we
:40:42. > :40:44.address it, but the idea that we can ignore it and make it go away, talk
:40:45. > :40:50.to people in the Philippines and you will hear a very different story. I
:40:51. > :40:54.think you are very confused, if I may say so. First of all, where
:40:55. > :40:59.there is no scientific connection, and this is accepted by the IPCC and
:41:00. > :41:04.the majority of scientists, is between global warming and
:41:05. > :41:07.hurricanes and typhoons, including this terrible one in the
:41:08. > :41:12.Philippines, which is particularly bad. That is what the question was
:41:13. > :41:19.about. As for the 95%, what they are saying is that they are 95% certain
:41:20. > :41:26.that the amount of global warming that there has been is largely due
:41:27. > :41:29.to carbon emissions. But in fact, there has been very little global
:41:30. > :41:34.warming. There has been none at all over the past 15 years. This is a
:41:35. > :41:38.fact. If you go to The Met office, they admit this. Everybody knows
:41:39. > :41:43.about this ad mitts on it. The amount of global warming is very
:41:44. > :41:50.little. Ed Davey, what do you say to that? Every decade, it has been
:41:51. > :41:53.getting warmer. This year will be the seventh warmest on record. It is
:41:54. > :41:58.not just global temperatures, but temperatures in the oceans. The ice
:41:59. > :42:04.caps are melting. It is not just that, but the sea level rising. It
:42:05. > :42:08.is also the acidity in the seas. There is overwhelming evidence that
:42:09. > :42:14.climate change is happening. Do not believe me as a politician. Believe
:42:15. > :42:21.the scientists. The IPCC had 259 scientists from 39 countries, 50,000
:42:22. > :42:28.comments for peer review. It was the most peer-reviewed piece of science
:42:29. > :42:31.in human history. I think what Nigel Lawson challenged you with was that
:42:32. > :42:42.there has been no change over the past 15 years. Is that true, or not?
:42:43. > :42:47.It is flat. It is not flat. When we are talking about climate change, we
:42:48. > :42:51.are talking about long periods. The global warming foundation, which
:42:52. > :42:53.Nigel Lawson shares, which is trying to undermine the scientific
:42:54. > :42:58.consensus on climate change, they take this 15 years. Because the
:42:59. > :43:03.increase in global temperature has been slowing down, they say climate
:43:04. > :43:07.change is not happening. When you ask scientists, they say, over a
:43:08. > :43:12.short period, we do not expect to bridge is always to go up. If you
:43:13. > :43:15.take a longer time period, temperatures are definitely going
:43:16. > :43:21.up. He chooses his periods and he should not do that. Why do you say
:43:22. > :43:26.he tries to undermine scientific opinion? What do you think his
:43:27. > :43:33.motive is when you say that? You suggest an ulterior motive. Nigel
:43:34. > :43:40.will have two answer that. Used the verve undermine, as though there is
:43:41. > :43:44.some malpractice in disagreeing. He has done it in a very open way. He
:43:45. > :43:51.writes a good book about it, but I disagree with most of what is in it.
:43:52. > :43:55.What he does, he puts his argument, but he denies, as far as I can see,
:43:56. > :43:58.the evidence from the international scientific immunity. It is not just
:43:59. > :44:03.the international scientific community. The current chief
:44:04. > :44:08.scientist in Britain believes there is a problem. The previous chief
:44:09. > :44:12.scientist thought so, and his predecessor as well. The scientists
:44:13. > :44:19.are telling us we have to take this seriously. Wasn't the second part of
:44:20. > :44:25.the question, and what are we going to do about it? What can we do to
:44:26. > :44:30.reduce the risk of further disasters? Getting on to actually
:44:31. > :44:41.doing something about it will be slightly more difficult. Paul
:44:42. > :44:45.Kenny. Throw that one to me! I remember in the 1970s scientists
:44:46. > :44:49.were telling us that the ozone layer was being depleted. I remember it
:44:50. > :44:54.well. Everybody went around changing from hairspray and getting rid of
:44:55. > :44:59.fridges and all sorts of things. The idea that this has not been a long,
:45:00. > :45:03.long, long run into where we are now is not an honest as Isham. The
:45:04. > :45:11.acidity of the oceans is rising. It is man-made. -- it is not an honest
:45:12. > :45:14.position. Somebody did not leave the fridge open. The ice caps are
:45:15. > :45:20.melting. I do not have the scientific knowledge of other
:45:21. > :45:24.colleagues, but that is what I see. What we need to do about it, this is
:45:25. > :45:29.where the argument comes about how we have two adapt, what energy we
:45:30. > :45:36.use and how we use it. Nicky is right. Many car manufacturers to the
:45:37. > :45:39.decision to move to lower emissions. Really low emissions. This was
:45:40. > :45:42.because they recognised this was where the markets were going to be.
:45:43. > :45:47.That is what we have to force other people to do. In some sense, it is
:45:48. > :45:51.just good business to lower carbon emissions. It is good business to
:45:52. > :45:56.take the view that there is global warming and adjust our energy use,
:45:57. > :46:06.our types of energy. We have been talking about carbon capture for
:46:07. > :46:09.years. What about adding to fuel bills for the development of green
:46:10. > :46:14.sources and other sources, are you in favour of that? I am, but I more
:46:15. > :46:17.in favour of using some of the profits which the energy company
:46:18. > :46:22.makes, instead of taking it out of the pockets of the consumers. Let me
:46:23. > :46:28.hear from some members of our audience. The person in the blue
:46:29. > :46:34.shirt up on the left, 1st... I think these are valid points which have
:46:35. > :46:37.been raised, that I think scientific data is available only for such a
:46:38. > :46:43.small window, given how long the planet has been in existence. I am
:46:44. > :46:46.not a scientist, I am a person who works out on the water, and I think
:46:47. > :46:50.the quickest way we can make an impact is to stop carrier bags.
:46:51. > :46:59.There are so many things we can do. But that pollution. Stop carrier
:47:00. > :47:03.bags in supermarkets, how simple can it be? And you in the middle. We are
:47:04. > :47:08.missing the point. If you went to the Philippines and said, what is
:47:09. > :47:12.the single most significant thing we can do to help them survive, they
:47:13. > :47:16.are not going to be saying, carbon tax and Climate Change Act, they are
:47:17. > :47:25.going to be saying, help me build a house with proper foundations. And
:47:26. > :47:30.the person over there on the right hand side? In answer to the
:47:31. > :47:34.question, what can we do about it, things like green levies are just a
:47:35. > :47:40.drop in the ocean, when you compare it to parts of Asia and China, who
:47:41. > :47:45.are having a massive impact on CO2 emissions. Nigel Lawson, do you
:47:46. > :47:54.approve of green levies? I think the whole policy which Ed Davey is
:47:55. > :48:00.promoting is positively immoral. It is not going to work, but it is
:48:01. > :48:05.positively immoral. The gentleman towards the back there who said that
:48:06. > :48:09.what the Philippines people want is to rebuild their country, I want to
:48:10. > :48:14.get richer, because they are poor country, which has been exacerbated
:48:15. > :48:23.in a huge increase in population, fastest-growing population in the
:48:24. > :48:26.world... Ed is going to try to go to Warsaw to try to get a global
:48:27. > :48:36.agreement, but he is not going to get that. We are not expecting to
:48:37. > :48:40.get agreement next week. And they did not get one in Copenhagen, and I
:48:41. > :48:46.will tell you why. But what is the positive immorality? I will tell you
:48:47. > :48:51.what it is. The reason we use carbon -based energy, fossil fuels, is
:48:52. > :48:54.because it is far and away the cheapest form of energy, and will be
:48:55. > :49:02.for the foreseeable future, although not for ever. But for the
:49:03. > :49:05.foreseeable future. And if you move away from that, you are moving from
:49:06. > :49:09.cheaper energy to more expensive energy. It is causing enough
:49:10. > :49:14.problems in this country. The developing world, China, is not
:49:15. > :49:20.going to do that, and quite right, too. The increase in Chinese
:49:21. > :49:23.emissions in one year is bigger than the total emissions from the United
:49:24. > :49:29.Kingdom. So what we do is neither here nor there, unless there is this
:49:30. > :49:34.global agreement. The immorality is that if you are inhibiting their
:49:35. > :49:40.economic development by forcing them or persuading them to use expensive
:49:41. > :49:45.energy instead of cheaper energy, which they are not going to do, then
:49:46. > :49:49.you are going to condemn hundreds of millions of people in China and
:49:50. > :49:56.India and in the developing world to premature death, unnecessary
:49:57. > :50:00.disease, unnecessary poverty and destitution, that is what you are
:50:01. > :50:06.doing if you get them to do that. It is positively immoral. It is
:50:07. > :50:09.economic growth which will solve the problems in the Philippines and
:50:10. > :50:15.elsewhere, and that means using cheapest form of energy. So you are
:50:16. > :50:20.preventing growth in poorer parts of the world, which is immoral. We are
:50:21. > :50:25.not doing that. What we are saying is that the developed world makes
:50:26. > :50:29.the biggest cut in carbon emissions, and we need to help the poorer
:50:30. > :50:35.countries get a cleaner form of development than we have had. Let's
:50:36. > :50:39.take China, China is investing more in low carbon technology than any
:50:40. > :50:42.other country in the world. It has woken up to the problems of
:50:43. > :50:46.pollution and climate change, and I will tell you why. I have just been
:50:47. > :50:51.to China. If you go to their big cities, the air pollution in places
:50:52. > :50:58.like Beijing is dramatic, it is appalling. Nothing whatever to do
:50:59. > :51:03.with climate change humble that is not what they think. They are going
:51:04. > :51:07.to tackle this seriously. They are talking about building what they
:51:08. > :51:12.call an ecological civilisation. They are moving hard and fast on
:51:13. > :51:17.green growth, in order to try to change their whole model of growth,
:51:18. > :51:21.so as not to damage the air and the environment and the climate. You are
:51:22. > :51:26.behind the times, Nigel. If you look at China, other countries, even
:51:27. > :51:32.America, at what President Obama is now doing with Secretary Ceri, they
:51:33. > :51:35.are moving fast to try to reduce carbon emissions. That is why I
:51:36. > :51:41.think we can get a global deal, which we desperately need. We need
:51:42. > :51:47.to make sure that it enables our economies to grow, as well as
:51:48. > :51:52.developing countries. In my industry, the Chinese are working on
:51:53. > :51:54.low emission technology to sell to the rest it is not actually
:51:55. > :52:03.happening in the remote villages of China. The Chinese plan is that by
:52:04. > :52:11.2020, only 5% of their energy will be generated by wind power. And for
:52:12. > :52:16.solar power, it is less than 1%. They have been building
:52:17. > :52:27.coal-fired... If you look at the facts, they have been building
:52:28. > :52:30.coal-fired power stations at the rate of pretty well worn a month for
:52:31. > :52:34.several years, and they are continuing with that. These are not
:52:35. > :52:48.being billed for decoration, they are for use. You have been taken for
:52:49. > :52:54.a ride. There is a big change happening. Let me give you an
:52:55. > :52:58.example of solar. The costs of solar have plummeted in recent years,
:52:59. > :53:04.because China is manufacturing solar panels on a massive scale. It is
:53:05. > :53:06.brilliant for villages in sub Saharan Africa which cannot connect
:53:07. > :53:10.to the grid. They are going to have power much cheaper than some of the
:53:11. > :53:27.fossil fuels which they currently use. They are going to save money
:53:28. > :53:31.and go green. I am a materials scientist and I have been involved
:53:32. > :53:37.in developing materials to move away from CFCs, to reduce greenhouse
:53:38. > :53:40.warming within the atmosphere, and I would say that what we really need
:53:41. > :53:45.to look at, whether we have got warming or not, and I do believe it
:53:46. > :53:50.is happening, is that we reduce our need for fossil fuels, resource
:53:51. > :53:56.efficiency. Nikki will have been developing her vehicles to have
:53:57. > :54:00.light weight and parts which are efficient, and that is what we
:54:01. > :54:04.should do. China are doing it. They know that is the way to go. Do you
:54:05. > :54:10.agree with Nigel on this? And usually for me, I find myself
:54:11. > :54:16.agreeing with Ed. We have scarce resources, why would we encourage
:54:17. > :54:19.profligate use? Whether you think climate change is happening or not,
:54:20. > :54:27.surely being more efficient with what we have got makes good business
:54:28. > :54:30.sense? When the evidence is there that it is 95% likely that climate
:54:31. > :54:34.change is man-made, I want to see Britain leading in this, because of
:54:35. > :54:38.all the jobs that will come in renewable energy, from that
:54:39. > :54:42.different way of living. I do not want Nikki Tuohy cycle more, I want
:54:43. > :54:47.her to have a more sustainable way of living. I am sorry, Nigel, you
:54:48. > :54:51.are the one who is confused, if you think we can carry on as we are now
:54:52. > :54:55.without there being any consequences. Of course there will
:54:56. > :55:06.be, and it is not just the people in the Philippines who will feel it. I
:55:07. > :55:11.would like to hear from one or two more. We have got to keep doing it,
:55:12. > :55:17.we cannot pretend that nothing is happening. Your turn. I was going to
:55:18. > :55:22.say, everybody talks about emissions and industry, but farming accounts
:55:23. > :55:28.for an enormous amount of greenhouse gases. Sheep in New Zealand, cows in
:55:29. > :55:32.America, I remember learning it in geography GCSE. It is arrogant of
:55:33. > :55:44.human beings to think that there is anything that we can do which will
:55:45. > :55:49.destroy the planet. If it goes too far, the planet is going to have
:55:50. > :55:58.enough, and it will just say goodbye to us. I am not sure whether you are
:55:59. > :56:03.for cows and sheep or against them? I do not really have a political
:56:04. > :56:12.stance on that! Up there, you, with the spectacles on. Greater use of
:56:13. > :56:18.renewable energy is also about energy security, so we are not
:56:19. > :56:26.vulnerable. All prices rose massively if you years ago, and then
:56:27. > :56:29.fell again. Renewable energy is probably more stable in terms of its
:56:30. > :56:34.cost. We have got a big audience here, to any of you side with what
:56:35. > :56:40.Nigel Lawson has been saying? I agree totally. If you think that at
:56:41. > :56:45.the moment, the ice cap in the Antarctic is as big as it has ever
:56:46. > :56:50.been, and the planet, since the big bang, has been going in and out of
:56:51. > :56:56.cold, hot, wet, drive. It does what it does. We are not the dinosaurs,
:56:57. > :57:03.do we want to be extinct? We have got no choice. The planet will do
:57:04. > :57:09.what it does, and we will have no influence. So you would take no
:57:10. > :57:12.action on any front? One of those things you are talking about are
:57:13. > :57:17.great, but we cannot affect the climate. We cannot affect the
:57:18. > :57:23.change. Cleaning up the air is a great idea, renewables are a great
:57:24. > :57:28.idea, none of that is wrong, but it is arrogant to think that we can
:57:29. > :57:32.actually do anything to change the world. But scientists are telling us
:57:33. > :57:36.that there is a good possibility that we are responsible, so we could
:57:37. > :57:47.do things to limit the damage, is it not the right thing to do? The
:57:48. > :57:51.science is telling us that it is 95% likely that man is responsible for
:57:52. > :57:58.climate change, so therefore, we can do something about it. Why would we
:57:59. > :58:08.not? And who is a coastal city? We are, in Portsmouth. Why risk this
:58:09. > :58:11.city? Well, we started with Portsmouth, and we have come back to
:58:12. > :58:15.Portsmouth. Next week we are going to be in Salford, in greater
:58:16. > :58:18.Manchester. We have got a rather different kind of audience. We are
:58:19. > :58:23.looking for people who are either under 30 or over 60, so that we can
:58:24. > :58:32.see how to Geoffrey to generations you the big issues. So, we have got
:58:33. > :58:38.on the panel, at the moment, the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, and
:58:39. > :58:42.the broadcaster Joan Bakewell. So, that is next week, in Salford. The
:58:43. > :58:48.week after that we are in Falkirk, during the week when the Scottish
:58:49. > :58:51.Government will be publishing its detailed case for independence. If
:58:52. > :58:56.you want to come to Salford and you are the right side of 30 or 60, or
:58:57. > :59:01.if you are any age and you want to come to Falkirk, you can apply via
:59:02. > :59:11.our website or call the telephone number which is on the screen. The
:59:12. > :59:16.debate continues meanwhile on BBC Radio 5 Live. Thanks to our panel,
:59:17. > :59:23.and to all of you who came here. Good night.