Episode 11 The Big Questions

Are we all in it together? Convincing climate sceptics.

Religious voices in Parliament. Today we're live from

Patcham High School in Brighton. Welcome, everybody,

to The Big Questions. In this week's Budget the Chancellor

reduced help to the disabled through personal independence

payments by ?3.2 billion across this 370,000 disabled people will lose

an average of ?3,500 each. His announcement ruffled a lot

of feathers in both Houses of Parliament and in all

the political parties, including losing the Conservative

Secretary of State for Work It doesn't matter that

the Chancellor was right when he said we will actually see

spending on personal independence payments for the disabled rise

by a billion pounds by 2020/2021. The rise is not as big

as he originally promised, and as a result some of the least

able members of society will get less help in the future

than they had originally been Iain Duncan Smith, in his

resignation letter, said they should be finding the best way to better

focus resources Here is our question this morning

for our first debate. Should a society be judged

by the way it treats the balance is about

its less fortunate? I'm very worried about the future,

in terms of the level of cuts in the last budget. He said even more needs

to go. We are talking about a total transformation of our society. One

of the things I find absolutely infuriating, I have a very elderly,

frail husband, and we have a blue badge because he cannot walk.

Looking at society, the whole thing is we don't really care about the

disabled because you go for a disabled parking place and somebody

without a blue badge is there. disabled parking place and somebody

speak to them and they say, I'm only going to be a minute. This is an

attitude of society about disabled people. It infuriates me because

people simply don't care. Do you think there are some people playing

the system? Definitely. We have a carer who looks after my husband,

she said to me, I know of a person who's got a mobility car and both

she and her husband work and they've had all sorts of things and she was

absolutely furious at the way that they are playing the system. Do you

think that's a big problem? I don't know. Some people do but other

people deservedly need those benefits. How do we target the

people that need the money? These debates always go down the line and

they play into the way that the government wants to frame the

debate, the deserving and the undeserving. Actually, we need to

move beyond this. One of the proposals the Green party has is a

basic income. Everybody pretty much gets a basic income. The tax system

and the benefits system is extremely complicated. We could save a lot of

money by simplifying it across the board. Giving people Top Of The Pops

and getting past -- giving people the top up that they are entitled to

rather than defrauding the system. On balance we are a much better

society. People are not trying to get what they can. Why is that myth

propagated? It is ideological ego driven. It was done so by Iain

Duncan Smith and this government, who want to get people to think

about the deserving and the undeserving so they can push through

their ideology. This lady was not discussing a mythological thing, she

said her husband's carer said this was a think she had seen and it

upset her. The lady did not say it is a huge thing, she said it was a

thing but it is a real thing. Why dismiss it? It is the lack of

perspective. Benefit fraud does exist. It is 0.7% of anything

spending. I wish we spent as much time talking about the people at the

top who avoid tax. You run a small business. Do you think reducing

capital gains tax and corporation tax is a good thing? I agree with

your statement about entrepreneurs. Most of them don't pay themselves as

salary. In terms of vulnerable people, the definition of who is

vulnerable has changed and entrepreneurs are of honourable.

Some of them cannot pay their own salaries. They are constantly

looking at different ways they can get some sort of cash break to help

them grow and sustain their businesses. Do you feel people who

want to grow their businesses are in danger of getting demonised? Not

when you're at the bottom and you don't even have a salary, you don't

think that deeply. I was fascinated with what Jonathan said, the father

of negative income tax was Milton Friedman, who proposed that for the

Nixon administration, it was not taken up and the Democrats argued it

was very important that payment from the state be related to work, so

they put in place the tax credit. The fact is it works, and it is a

pity that the attempts at cutting tax credits in this country was not

a reform to make it an earned income tax credit. You are defining work

very narrowly as paid employment. A lot of people contribute to the

community and society but don't receive an income and if you want to

go into something about public service you need to take a very low

salary in the voluntary sector or whatever. If you go into business

you get a very high salaries if you are successful. That is valued more.

I'm going to give you the last word. There is more from Jonathan shortly.

We are not addressing the question, society should be judged by how it

treats the most vulnerable people, they are are minority, they cannot

get out there, they don't have a voice, we need to take

responsibility for making the most vulnerable get support, that we

agree as a society, regardless of the political agenda, that it is

something we all commit to, it is a social contract that says this is

our responsibility. I hate to bring religion into this, but go back to

the words of the prophet, the orphan, the widow, why are those

people repeated? They are the people who are dependent on all of us

acknowledging that we have a responsibility towards them. Thank

you. If you have something

to say about that debate, log on

to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions, where you'll find links to join

in the discussion online. We're also debating live this

morning from Brighton: Has the time come to take

climate change seriously? And should more religions

have a say in Parliament? So get tweeting or emailing on those

topics now or send us any other ideas or thoughts you may

have about the show. It's been a particularly beautiful

spring this year with snowdrops, crocuses and then daffodils blooming

months early across the country. Nasa, the American space agency,

recorded a dramatic surge in the surface temperature

of Earth in February, creating the biggest

month-on-month rise in global And the amount of sea ice

in the Arctic has also reached Some of this, scientists agree,

is down to the El Nino event currently coming to an end

in the Pacific Ocean. The majority of scientists say

the global climate system has been strongly influenced by us,

through human emissions of greenhouse gases,

especially from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide

from our use of fossil fuels. Has the time come to take

climate change seriously? Many people say we are facing a

disaster of biblical proportions. Hottest February since records

began. As the message got through? It must be so frustrating for you

knowing how bad things are and there are still people resisting this

message for whatever reason. Cheer us up. How bad are things? The data

is really alarming and we should be aligned and that comes on the back

of all sorts of observable changes to the planet, we can see the Amazon

rainforest is getting drier, you mentioned the Arctic ice, we are

seeing permafrost in the tundra in the northern parts of the planet

melting which is releasing methane which is a kind of super climate

change gas. What can we do? The planet is changing, it is having an

impact on people around the world, their livelihoods are being

destroyed by extreme weather events, tornadoes, droughts, flooding.

Extinction... Yes, even in this country we've seen a big increase in

flooding incidents and people who are flooded out of their homes lose

their jobs and are not able to go back, for years. This is a really

serious problem having a big impact on people now. I would say that the

world are starting to take climate change seriously, just in December

last year, nearly all of the world leaders got together for a big time

at conference and said, climate change is happening, we need to take

much more action. It is not too late? They said they will try to

keep global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees. The really big challenge is

whether the world will act together to keep these temperatures within

safe limits and will this country do its fair share? Friends of the Earth

is concerned that the government is not doing what it needs to do. We

are nearly there but we need to work in concert, morally we need to do

it, it is for our own interest, for our children and grandchildren.

Things are very bad and to transition our economy into green

jobs, to move into renewable energy, you've got to decide what you're

going you've got to decide what you're

morally, ethically, and we had a burgeoning renewable energy

morally, ethically, and we had a businesses going out of business,

the collapse of what could have been a world leading market. We could be

creating a sustainable, strong economy transitioning to resistant

local economies, so we could... How do we get rid of fossil fuels?

Create alternatives, get rid of the need for them. There are a wide

plethora of alternatives, it is not about one or the other, wind

turbines, waved, solar, the technology is increasing all the

time and if you invest then we will become a world leader. Why are we

not doing it? APPLAUSE. At hand goes up of dissent. You are

at climate change sceptic. You are with Donald Trump. The vast majority

of scientists... That is not true. The actual percentage of scientists

that believe man is having a decisive influence is 7% tops and if

you go on our website you can see the link to peer review papers that

show that and the BBC constantly put out propaganda. Do not shout

rubbish, look at the actual facts. Everything happening in the world

has happened before. Climate change is natural, there is no evidence

that CO2 is driving climate change, what the data shows is world

temperatures control CO2 levels. What? We have a lot of events

happening due to a very wild jet stream which we predicted from solar

activity years ago and if you want to do anything about natural climate

change what we should be doing is having more defence against extreme

events but we should not be wasting money reducing the amount of CO2

because it is driving nothing. It is good for plants and the more, the

better. That is nonsense. Go on our website and many other websites and

stop listening to oil companies who back it in order to justify

increases in oil price. That is a fact. There are voices like Piers

Corbyn. You are coming up against a wave of dissent. It is important

there is a balance that reflect the real scientific evidence. There are

voices like Piers and he is a very small minority... You go on our

website and read the facts, facts is what counts in science. 7% of

scientists? I read it was 98%. That was untrue. And also irrelevant.

Let's check out the evidence with Jonathan and Liz. The panel on

climate change, the world scientist... They are not! They are

not scientists. You are not helping the cause by giving a platform to

such ridiculous views. That is rubbish. I think we should be very

clear about this. This is nonsense. It comes up time and again. In the

interest of balance, the BBC has him on. I've challenged him to a public

debate on the science. The thing is, it is important to address this and

debate against these views and show the public. 56% of Tory MPs

according to an opinion poll have sympathy for this view. The general

public, in your terms, if I can say this, do not realise the severity of

the situation. There are opinions like this but it is up to you and

incumbent upon you, people like you, Jonathan, to come and discuss it and

we hear the other side and you slam dunk them and it is important that

you do that. I am throwing you the basketball. In a programme like

this, we can throw statistics back and forward and he will tell me to

go to this or that website. The fact is that 99% of scientists are in one

camp. Piers, please listen to Jonathan. He is now going to dispute

that and we will not sort that out in this context. We have had this

debate. It happened ten or 15 years ago. It is so over! Let's talk about

what we have got to do. If you have a meteor that will hit the earth in

20 years' time you know it will collide and cause devastation and

you pull out all the stops to address that situation. We have a

metaphorical meteor heading for earth right now and we need to take

steps right now so that my kid grows up in a world that they are not

devastated by. If you think the migration crisis is now, it is

nothing compared to the climate refugees that will be swarming. You

are thicker and he once worked in advertising. What a journey. -- you

are a vicar. How should this message be sold so that people realise the

implications? I firmly agree with peers. We need to look at the facts.

The facts. The facts are that since the Second World War, over 50 or 60

years, we have seen a massive decline in numbers of species living

on this planet. We face an oncoming tidal wave of the sixth mass

extinction event on this planet. Our relationship as human beings with

the natural world is an absolute crisis. We say that we have the

climate crisis, and extinction crisis. The crisis is within us.

That is where we need to begin to look. The debate around climate is

one of the issues that we are facing but it is emblematic of the crisis

of conscience, a crisis of identity for each human being on the planet

in terms of our relationship with the natural world. We need to dream.

We need to take back the future for our children and our grandchildren.

This is something that I do not hear the politicians, our elected

politicians, speaking about. This is desperately important. Now we stand

at a crossroads and we need to address this urgently. With

deforestation, the extinction of species, it is a pretty grim picture

at the moment. That is nothing to do with CO2. It must be done anyway.

Edward Snowden the other week was saying that the whole concept of

climate change was invented, never mind CO2, by the CIA. He was saying

that but think it might have a spoof. Just checking. Let's look at

the facts. Arctic sea ice is at an all-time low. The biggest month and

month temperature change since records began. The phrase was we are

all in this together. We are all in this together so what are we going

to do about it? What we have just heard is very interesting because it

shows the religious origins of the belief in global warming as

catastrophic. As a potential catastrophe. Bear in mind, even

despite the spike in sea temperature, the climate models are

overrunning the observed records. The idea that we are on course to

some kind of Armageddon catastrophe is religious in origin. If I may

add, I think where the ethical dimension in this debate is

incredibly important is for people to be honest about the policy

consequences of what they advocate. If we advocate green power and

renewables, the consequences are higher electricity bills. Higher

electricity bills that harmed the worse off, and elderly people, whose

bills and income, one of the top things they spend on the household

budgets is electricity bills. You say it is religious in origin. You

are arguing with a scientific consensus. Guys! I will see you

later on, OK? Owen Jones! I look forward to the balanced discussion

next week about whether we have a flat earth! Seriously, this is an

opportunity... Now you come to mention it... I wouldn't put it past

you! Climate change seems abstract and technical to people but you can

make it about everyday issues. In Germany they have seized the

opportunity and created hundreds of thousands of renewable energy jobs,

giving skilled, decent jobs and apprenticeships back to young

people. We have a crisis of skilled jobs in this country so let's use

the climate change threat, instead of doing what this Government is

doing which is attacking and undermining the burgeoning

organisation that can deal with it. Let's insulate all of the homes and

that will help our economy as well. Let's insulate all of the homes and

It is like the flat earth, Let's insulate all of the homes and

over, but you have got a Let's insulate all of the homes and

problem here, to convince people. Like in

problem here, to convince people. there are those people that will not

look at the there are those people that will not

them for whatever there are those people that will not

you do about it? I think we need to ignore

you do about it? I think we need to voice basically and focus on what

the majority of people are interested in. Everybody in general

wants to do their bit to protect the planet. They want to see a planet

that is going to be thriving and there for our children and

grandchildren to live on. A lot of this good stuff is even happening.

In China even. They have reduced their net carbon emissions by 1.5%

last year. They have got to the point that we have not got to. Their

approach to the natural world is another question. They have stopped

building coal-fired power stations and they are closing them down. They

are the biggest investor in renewable energy in the world. We

are seeing it in this country. There are so many things that we need to

do to tackle climate good for us and our society anyway.

In London we are getting to the point where there are as many people

cycling as driving cars in central London. That is really good for our

health and for ending London. That is really good for our

What is it that people are afraid of? That accidentally we might save

the planet? I have always wanted to say this. Citizens are planet earth,

let's hear from you. Hands up. say this. Citizens are planet earth,

guy in the white shirt. Good morning. I want to comment on that.

What is the accidental side-effect? Are we accidentally going to stop

lung diseases from car emissions? Are we accidentally going to stop

rainforests becoming extinct by stopping deforestation? This is not

an issue of a terrible thing, a 50-50 does. Rupert says it will cost

a lot of people money with electricity bills going up. That is

a whole matter for the economy. And for people. So people don't mind

paying higher electricity bills? It would save millions. 10,000 people

in London every year die from illnesses related to air pollution.

Think of the NHS saving. At the back. Good morning. For me it is a

case of... Well, we are currently in a situation where we are in a carbon

dependent economy, but that means we are dependent on oil from some of

the worst regimes in the world. Even if you don't get about the planet

and you can't think 50 years down the road, why is it such a bad thing

that we should be able to produce all of our own energy? Our economy

could be dependent on energy in Britain. And free ourselves from the

shackles of very questionable regimes? Yes. One more, Richard. It

is always interesting to hear what Richard D North says about stuff and

we will hear it in a second. Hello. Yes, we need to question more why we

are not taking climate change seriously enough. And I think the

reason is we don't question enough the fundamentally problematic nature

of our capitalist system. And it is absurd obsession with economic

growth and money. There is profit in renewables if done right. A lot of

big companies have moved into the renewable business. Where there is a

way there is a dollar. I understand. In the time that we have got left,

our grandchildren, our children, 30 years' time, you may well be dead

and I may well be dead. I hope not you. Our children will say shame on

us, won't they? We haven't done too badly. Our emissions per head of

carbon are about where Denmark's are in Denmark is famously virtuous and

it is a fraction of America's. Our contribution of this country is to

say we can only be 2% of the solution to the problem. -- our

contribution as a country is 2%. And we should. I imagine we will

decouple from deforestation. But we shouldn't beat ourselves up for

being terrible. Whatever we do will probably crash through to some quite

high temperatures that might be quite dangerous. Bless you, I have a

lot of time for your point of view. The world is cooling. The jet stream

has moved South. Just as the debate is hotting up, I have got to leave

it. For the sake of sanity, and it has got to be a 30 second thought, I

am going to give you the last word. There goes the BBC again. We should

tackle climate change because it is the right thing to do but also

because the things that we can do to tackle climate change will make the

world a better place and will be better for people living on the

planet. Thank you very much indeed. You can join in all this

morning's debates by logging on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions

then following the link Or you can tweet using

the hashtag bbctbq. Tell us what you think

about our last big question too. Should more religions

have a say in Parliament? And if you'd like to be

in the audience at a future show, so we're not on air but we'll be

back from York on April 3rd. We'll be recruiting audiences

for two editions that day, the usual

live show in the morning and then commemorating the 400th anniversary

of Shakespeare's death asking does Shakespeare offer a better

moral guide than the Bible? After that we're in Bath

on April 17th for our usual Today is Palm Sunday,

when Jesus returned to Jerusalem in triumph, riding on a donkey,

with his path strewn with palm leaves by crowds shouting "Hosanna,

and blessed is the King of Israel". It led to his arrest

for sedition against Rome It was the first clash

between the early Christian Church Today 26 bishops, but only

from the Church of England, sit Yet only around a million

of its citizens will sit on a Church Should more religions

have a say in Parliament? Alison Ruoff, formerly of the

General Synod of the Church of England, how lovely to have you on

the programme again. You believe all ethical questions ultimately go back

to God. How do we know what he thinks and how do we asking? Because

we have got's word, the Bible. I passionately believe that is best

for every single one of us, including climate change and all

these things. We have mucked things up because that is how we are by

nature. But God wants what is best for us.

So basically, not necessarily the Bible, we should have as many

religious people from as many different faiths and liberal

traditions, progressive traditions all in it together fighting the

corner of God? Now. Shall I go home now? I want this country, it is

established with the Church of England, and has been for centuries.

I want to retain our Christian identity and I want to make sure we

are a Christian people, more than 50% say this is a Christian country

and if we look back at our Christian heritage and all it has meant for us

with freedom and justice then we need to hang onto that. We must be

open to people of different faiths but I passionately believe the Bible

is God's authoritative work and we have 26 bishops in the House of

Lords. We are discussing religious voices in Parliament and we launched

into a theological debate. I was answering the question I was asked.

You were not. The theological claims, whether they are true, is

something everybody is free to have a position on but it is irrelevant

in how we represent people. If the Bible is true, there is no logical

link between that and having 26 clerics in the House of Lords. I

think there are two important point to make. Religious individuals are

represented in parliament. Religious groups are represented. We've got

representatives from charities, trade unions, special interest

groups who are free to campaign for different issues and

groups who are free to campaign for across. We don't need to

groups who are free to campaign for multipolar theocracies.

The point was made, the Labour Party owes more to Methodism than Marxism.

They used to say the Conservative Party was the Church of England that

prey. Do you want more religious voices? I have a problem with the

word, religious voices. I'm involved with religion but I have a totally

different view, I don't think with religion but I have a totally

Bible is the word of God, it is human beings trying to work out what

God wants of us, what we need is a Parliament that reflect the whole

society, everybody representative, this is particularly important when

we talk this is particularly important when

make sure that reflect the diversity of society. When you refer to it as

a Christian country of society. When you refer to it as

treated as if it is a Christian country, I cannot go and buy a

treated as if it is a Christian People know virtually nothing about

Jews even though we have been here since the 16 50s. We need to have an

open day since the 16 50s. We need to have an

through and see what we do. Is there a problem if more orthodox religious

people have a say, we would not have some of the great progressive

people have a say, we would not have reforms we have? Equal marriage,

writes for transgender people. reforms we have? Equal marriage,

seems to be progress, aren't religions socially

conservative and would they put constraints on progress? I disagree

with portraying religion is naturally regressive and trying to

with portraying religion is impose values and morals on

everybody else. The debate in politics at the moment, the Church

of England have a very big politics at the moment, the Church

that. Everybody should be have their voices. I'm glad we've

got the Church of England bishops have their voices. I'm glad we've

with people who are basically there because they gave a lot of money to

a political party or got kicked out by voters. The bishops, we can rely

on to bring an ethical and moral perspective.

on to bring an ethical and moral in favour of adding representatives

from all other faiths and communities because I

from all other faiths and be an exercise in tokenism, the

government likes people who say yes and they would have them

hand-picked. What do and they would have them

to do? Remove the barriers to everyone having their voice heard in

government as equal citizens in our democracy. The most obvious barrier

is if you rich it is a lot easier to get your voice heard by government

than if you cannot afford to make a donation. There were other barriers.

Everyone's voices? One barrier for the Muslim community is it seems any

Muslim who becomes prominent automatically get attacked and

smeared as some kind of secret terrorist sympathiser. I'm not a

great fan of Sadiq Khan's political policies but the way that he is

being smeared and attacked in the media by some of his political

opponents as being a secret Islamic extremist is ridiculous. I think

there's a conversation about how demographically representative

parliament is and we should see what we do to make it more

representative, we don't proportion people in Parliament. Piers has got

a special interest as we heard earlier on... And is free to make

his point. We've got this idea that the Church of England brings a

special moral guy mentioned to Parliament. May bring a Christian

perspective. You are free to think that is giving you a special magical

moral insight and people are free to agree or disagree whether these

clerics have some special moral insight but we treat very

sceptically the claim that there is a class of people with a special

moral insight that is denied to the rest of us and we do not use it as a

basis for privilege in Parliament. Alison, do you want the liberal wing

of the Church of England to have more of a say? I don't. This is a

key point. Why is it a key point? If it's a Christian country, and we are

established, until we have disestablishment... That is your

opinion. We are an established church which goes with the state and

we are a Christian country and I want to see churches standing up for

the Bible, standing up for Jesus Christ, I also want to see the

bishops doing their stuff in the House of Lords. Half of them are

mealy-mouthed, feeble, cowardly. They don't stand up for the Gospel

and that is what I want to see. I'm going to go to Owen Jones. Peter

Owen Jones in a minute. My middle name is Peter, it's very confusing.

We are a representative democracy, not a theocracy. Parliament should

be representative of the people it exists to serve and people should

decide accordingly. We should abolish the House of Lords, nobody

elected it. The point you are making, officially this is a

Christian country but that is anachronistic, this is a diverse

nation of Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, non-believers. The point you're

making, this is why you are being disingenuous. Some people consider

themselves very religious who are extremely right-wing, will talk

about games but won't talk about people in poverty. -- will talk

about homosexuals. You have nothing to do with my ancestors, there were

Christians who were right wing and left wing, there is no one single

Christian voice and it is disingenuous of you to present that.

That is the argument, it transcends politics. I said I would go to the

revs Owen Peter Jones -- Peter Owen Jones. I've never heard someone

described the house of Bishops in such eloquent terms. I've been a

member of General Synod for 20 years. The trouble is our bishops

are appointed by the Crown and government, not to speak out, to

conform. They are appointed not to cause trouble. Absolute rubbish,

they are leaders in the Christian church and they need to do their

job. How can they do their job if they are not appointed to speak out?

That is rubbish, they are there to set an example and speak out for the

Christian religion. Your version of the Christian religion is not the

only version. Many different people have many different interpretations.

Some people see no prejudice in the Bible against same-sex marriage,

they think it would be fine with Jesus, others see lots of reasons to

say it is wrong. You don't have a monopoly on truth. The Bible does.

Even if you decided the House of Lords should have 26 religious

representatives, it would be a bit batty if it was Church of England.

You would let the Catholics, the Jews, the Muslims in. As I Church of

England clergyman, has the time not come for us to vote to choose the

people that lead us rather than having them appointed. Maybe we want

a written constitution. We've not got a lot of time left. The church

has changed its view on slavery, Sabbath, war and women. It has

changed its position even though it is based on the Bible. There are

those who set their separate from that block of 26 so there is

religious representation but it is on merit. The third crucial point is

the Church of England acts as its own interest group. In the budget it

got ?20 million whilst the disabled got benefits cut, for cathedrals. If

the Church of England had guts they would reject the ?20 million. We are

out of time. Thank you very much. As always, the debate continues online

and on Twitter and on here. We are back on April 23. Do join us.

Goodbye. See you soon.