Transcripts For BBCNEWS HARDtalk 20240714 : vimarsana.com

Hello, and welcome to hardtalk. Im shaun ley. Time is running out. If we dont act fast and radically, it will become too late to limit the effects of Global Warming. Its a sort of thing you hear from campaigners trying to wake up the world. Tim flannery isnt like that. The australian scientist is an optimist and absolutely convinced, he says, that we can shift from a carbon emitting to a carbon absorbing economy. Hope for mankind or just so much hot air . Tim flannery, welcome to hardtalk. Weve seen this year, certainly in europe, some of the most extraordinary temperatures and weather events that weve experienced. In some parts of western europe, a second heatwave in only a matter of a month. Belgium and the netherlands and germany recording their highest ever temperatures. Globally, the Un World Meteorological Organisation says the last four years have been the hottest known to man and yet Antonio Guterres, the un secretary general says the paradox is that as things are getting worse on the ground, political will seems to be fading. Why . I think that there are big problems in our political system. Weve seen a rise of populists who are very policy light and very nationalist heavy. And for some reason, they are winning elections. I personally dont understand it. I think at this moment we need strong leadership to deal with these issues. Instead we seem to be getting the weakest leadership weve seen for decades. Youve been writing about this subject for 16 years now. Has your attitude changed 7 yes, it has. I watch the science and i see things get worse and worse and i see the predictions coming true and time running out so for me, every year itjust gets tougher. When you say time starts to run out, what do you mean, can you quantify that . Sure, look, i chaired the Copenhagen Climate Council back in 2009 when we were hoping for a global agreement. That was just about the last time we could have achieved a good outcome just by cutting emissions. Today, we know we have to do two very difficult things at once if you want to achieve that same end and that is to cut those emissions hard and fast and to draw very large volumes of Greenhouse Gas out of the atmosphere. If we fail to do that, 20 years from now, even that option will be off the table and then i dont know where we go for solutions. Youve said that youve kind of slightly given up trying to persuade every climate sceptic you meet to change their minds a instead you focus on in particular working with business to try and get them to create the changes. One of the reasons you helped to found the Copenhagen Climate Council. Some are concerned, though, certainly those who regard themselves as environmentalists, that the focus on growth in our economies is one of the problems standing in the way of tackling Climate Change. In a sense, business is geared up for Something Different and its not complementary with the ambition you want to achieve in mitigating the effects of Global Warming. Look, i dont believe thats true. I measure success by the gigaton, right . Last year, our emissions went up byi. 7 . We added 3. 5 parts per million of co2 to the atmosphere, the highest on record over the last 12 months and that is failure for me. If the economy does or doesnt grow, im not looking at that, im looking at a different set of figures. You say you are looking at a different set but doesnt one inform the other . Let me put you what wells griffith, who was advising the Trump Administration on International Energy and climate, said in katowice in poland last december, where they had that big meeting, he said, we strongly believe no country should have to sacrifice their Economic Prosperity or Energy Security in pursuit of environmental sustainability. In other words, thats the direct clash between nationalism, if you like, the National Self interest, making America Great again, it could any other country we are talking about, and the wider interests of the Global Economy and the global environment. Look, that is just wrong. What we need, actually, is a whole new energy sector. We need a whole new sector to draw co2 down out of the atmosphere. We need to transform every industrial process that were in charge of. That will mean growth. You say yourself its wrong but you were writing on the Copenhagen Climate Council website when it set up, every revolution, from wood to coal and coal to oil and oil to renewables, profits have increased. Thats the way the world is. Yes, and thats what i believe. To hold that back and say it is going to destroy our economy. Even if that growth is contributing to the problems the climate is experiencing, its accelerating those problems. If you grow the old economy, you will destroy the climate. If we grow a new clean economy and in the next 30 years ago from carbon emitting to a carbon absorbing economy, we will grow the economy and hopefully head off the worst of the climate crisis. See, between 1980 and 2000, according to the intergovernmental science policy platform on biodiversity and Ecosystem Services back in may of this year, which published its report under the aegis of the un, it said 100 million hectares of Tropical Forest were lost, mainly in cattle ranchoing, in south america, Palm Oil Plantations in South East Asia contributed to the decline. Meanwhile, the population has gone up. International trade has increased 10 times over since 1970. To feed, clothe and give energy to this burgeoning world, forests have been cleared, especially in tropical asia. Isnt that tension part of the problem . You may have this desirable ambition for a Global Economy but we start with the one weve got and we are trying to deal with the effects of Climate Change. The reality is in this world that we will need to use the existing economy to build a new one. So every time you build a wind turbine or you manufacture a solar panel, youre going to use dirty energy. Part of the cost of the transition will be a growth in this dirty old economy. In terms of food, and you talk particularly about the cattle grazing and the destruction of rainforests, that is truly the old economy and the reason that that is growing as it is is because we are not exacting a carbon price on undesirable practices. So we need to make those changes. The Carbon Market hasnt worked. No, it hasnt worked. It must work in future. Because that gas thats sitting over our heads now driving this exceptionally hot summer day in europe and driving heatwaves around the world, that gas is not going anywhere unless we get it out. A quarter of it will sit there effectively forever, by human standards, unless we draw it down. The only way of drawing it down is by exacting a carbon price. And is the technology there to do what you want to do at this stage or are we still developing the technology . Thats the great question. No one can say what technologies will work at the gigaton scale. We have small industries, groups like Carbon Engineering which make biofuels out of atmospheric c02. Maybe some forestry, maybe, what i am keen on is seaweed farming. We can see the solutions in embryo there but it will be sometime before we know which of those are going to be effective, Cost Effective and effective in drawing down co2. Its difficult, is it, to appreciate the point youre making about this technology. In a sense, you went through this when you are for the argument for Geothermal Power as a way of actually Generating Energy without the price of adding to the emissions, and the money was spent and invested in a mine, that mine collapsed because of an explosion and effectively the investment was lost. Look, thats right and if i could say there, the thing that i didnt see and i was wrong about and a lot of the world didnt see was the power of the manufacturing process to drive costs out of production and so solar and wind, which are both manufacturing based new Energy Solutions have really killed everything else, including geothermal, so my little superannuation nest egg was unfortunately lost through that. But it hasnt got you off thinking there are solutions, that we just have to be prepared, perhaps to invest in lots of things simultaneously, to see what works. Thats right, no one can see the future. We know what the outcome is that we cant see clearly the pathway yet. This is part of the problem, isnt it . We have had it expressed to it certain extent sceptically by one British Government minister who said people in this country have given up on experts, they dont trust them. Its a global problem and in part its because the dire warnings never quite comes to pass as they are supposed to pass an inner thats good news but it somewhat discredits the people have issued those warnings. I would just save people down to the dire warnings, look at what is happening around you today. Heatwave records being broken across the world. In australia, were looking at having the hottest winter in south eastern australia on record. Here in europe, youve broken numerous records. The warnings are coming true. What we need is action. We need to see this transition of the economy, really start gathering pace in the next few years, otherwise we will miss the chance. Why isnt that action forthcoming then . Why is there a mismatch between what the public says it accept and i think the lowry, very respected survey, the lowry poll found 60 of people say Global Warming is a serious and pressing problem, we should take steps now but when it came to the federal election in 2019, the voters comprehensively rejected the oppositions labor Party Proposal which was to tackle it by reducing emissions by 45 by 2030. It lost badly. Its primary vote was down at a time when it was expected to win. The winning governments primary vote was down to, to be fair but this is part of the trend where we are seeing government or potential Prime Minister is putting themselves forward without effective policy and this is dangerous. What i dont understand and perhaps you can help us because you run the countrys climate organisation, the federal Government Organisation until it was abolished by the Abbott Government because it was sceptical about the arguments for man made Climate Change. Why is it that voters can say on the one hand we think something must be done, yes, it will affect us but devote the opposite way . The reason for that in my view is that we are not bringing the whole community along with us. What we are saying is we want change, people in the cities, those aware of the issues want change and yet you coalminers out there in the regions, you will have to look after yourself in future. We havent had governments come in with comprehensive structural adjustment policies up was seen in germany. In germany, the transition has been pretty flawless and not a single coalmine has lost theirjob. In australia, we havent had that sense of social responsibility just brought people along. Social responsibility is one thing but its easy to have when you are not bearing the cost. One of the economic models that looked at the proposal from the Opposition Labor Party in the run up to the federal election in this spring suggested the cost would be about 181 million us, 167,000 jobs. Its not really surprising, people who work in those industries look at those warnings and say of course, i care about the planet, my children and grandchildren but right now, i care about having food on the table, paying the bills and mortgage and if somebody else, not mine to sacrifice myjob, properly. Ive seen this firsthand, ive met coalminers have said to me, im working in a coal mine, i got two children, am i doing the right thing . Of course, i say the first responsibility is to put bread on the table for your family and thats why we as a society need to move Forward Together with this and create new industries and its not as if this is difficult in queensland. You could see, i work with groups who want to do innovative a marvellous new things in these areas. Getting Government Support to do it is really tough and i dont understand that. Isnt part of the problem is it doesnt matter if australia gets its house in order, or europe for that matter . The statistics suggest half the Greenhouse Gas emissions come from three countries, india, the United States and china, so the rest of the world can do its bit and that is not going to change. Argument is just because i see things being done wrong, i will do wrong things as well and that makes for a great world. That is totally wrong. We all need to do our bit otherwise how do people have confidence that we all will act. Every country needs to do its proportion. 193 countries, you are right, most of the emissions come from three but why should those three disproportionate burden . Surely this is a collective issue. They should share the disproportionate burden because they are generating most of it. They should bear the proportion that relates to their contribution to the problem. And their contribution is the biggest. Labour its large, yes but that doesnt mean australia should do nothing. Where the 15th largest emitter capita, we are a large emitter if you look at it in that way and we need to do whats right. I mentioned Antonio Guterres at the start of this interview. He says, i want to hear about how were going to stop increasing emissions by 2020, and dramatically reduce emissions to reach net zero by mid century. We had the Outgoing British Prime Minister making a promise much the same. Theresa may said the uk will hit net zero emissions by 2050. It is easy to say these things, theyre predictions, and its hard to deliver on them. It is, and the delivery will be down to industry. You recently saw Andrew Mackenzie from bhp say this is a crisis and we need emergency action. Ive lived through 20 years of Climate Action where we have not moved the dial a centimetre. Were still headed towards catastrophe. We need something new. So if i was the Prime Minister of this country, what i would be doing is getting all the industries together, saying im watching you all, youre all scared to move first because you dont want to lose your advantage. How will we move together collectively . Give me your pledges, so that i can take them to the un and show that were actually going to lead. Because when Companies Make pledges, particularly short term ones, they tend to stand by them. And what about governments . There are some interesting remarks from zhou dadi, a member of chinas National Expert panel on Climate Change last summer, where he said china is the number one emitter of Greenhouse Gases. We hold our hands up, so china will take more action internationally to combat Climate Change. He then said china had already reduced emissions intensity relative to gdp by 44 , which is quite handy because he promised to get it down by 45 by next year. So he said a Study Suggests it is very likely we can achieve this target before 2025. In other words, peak absolute Greenhouse Gas emissions by 2030, we can do it five years earlier. These are political statements. Do you believe them . Look, from china, i am encouraged by them. The big issue for china as i understand at the moment is the growth in the vehicle sector, you know, because the number of new cars coming online is huge. So they seem to be making very Good Progress with their electric vehicle manufacturing, and i am hopeful that they can do that by 2025. I mean, that will be the single biggest contribution towards actually achieving what we need to do stay below two degrees. There are a lot of instances where we see the propaganda value of promising things, and often its a bit like pledging when there is a national disaster. Governments pledge money, and then the money never actually appears. And i wonder if these promises are made and there is actually an objective way of measuring them. How will we actually know whether were making the progress we think we are . How is even our poor old mr guterres going to know if he gets all his pledges . Look, no one can know the future, and as a scientist, i can say i can never believe anything until we see the figures on the table. So, when we start seeing those declines, that will be great. But at the moment, were going in the wrong direction in a very bad way. I wanted to ask you about the book that you published a few months ago, that has just been released in paperback europe the first 100 million years, mercifully at only 313 pages. You describe europe not so much as a continent but as an appendix jutting out into the atlantic ocean. Yet, from what you say, it is an appendix with quite a lot in it of learning for us now. What is it about europes experience and its experience of Global Warming<\/a>. Its a sort of thing you hear from campaigners trying to wake up the world. Tim flannery isnt like that. The australian scientist is an optimist and absolutely convinced, he says, that we can shift from a carbon emitting to a carbon absorbing economy. Hope for mankind or just so much hot air . Tim flannery, welcome to hardtalk. Weve seen this year, certainly in europe, some of the most extraordinary temperatures and weather events that weve experienced. In some parts of western europe, a second heatwave in only a matter of a month. Belgium and the netherlands and germany recording their highest ever temperatures. Globally, the Un World Meteorological Organisation<\/a> says the last four years have been the hottest known to man and yet Antonio Guterres<\/a>, the un secretary general says the paradox is that as things are getting worse on the ground, political will seems to be fading. Why . I think that there are big problems in our political system. Weve seen a rise of populists who are very policy light and very nationalist heavy. And for some reason, they are winning elections. I personally dont understand it. I think at this moment we need strong leadership to deal with these issues. Instead we seem to be getting the weakest leadership weve seen for decades. Youve been writing about this subject for 16 years now. Has your attitude changed 7 yes, it has. I watch the science and i see things get worse and worse and i see the predictions coming true and time running out so for me, every year itjust gets tougher. When you say time starts to run out, what do you mean, can you quantify that . Sure, look, i chaired the Copenhagen Climate Council<\/a> back in 2009 when we were hoping for a global agreement. That was just about the last time we could have achieved a good outcome just by cutting emissions. Today, we know we have to do two very difficult things at once if you want to achieve that same end and that is to cut those emissions hard and fast and to draw very large volumes of Greenhouse Gas<\/a> out of the atmosphere. If we fail to do that, 20 years from now, even that option will be off the table and then i dont know where we go for solutions. Youve said that youve kind of slightly given up trying to persuade every climate sceptic you meet to change their minds a instead you focus on in particular working with business to try and get them to create the changes. One of the reasons you helped to found the Copenhagen Climate Council<\/a>. Some are concerned, though, certainly those who regard themselves as environmentalists, that the focus on growth in our economies is one of the problems standing in the way of tackling Climate Change<\/a>. In a sense, business is geared up for Something Different<\/a> and its not complementary with the ambition you want to achieve in mitigating the effects of Global Warming<\/a>. Look, i dont believe thats true. I measure success by the gigaton, right . Last year, our emissions went up byi. 7 . We added 3. 5 parts per million of co2 to the atmosphere, the highest on record over the last 12 months and that is failure for me. If the economy does or doesnt grow, im not looking at that, im looking at a different set of figures. You say you are looking at a different set but doesnt one inform the other . Let me put you what wells griffith, who was advising the Trump Administration<\/a> on International Energy<\/a> and climate, said in katowice in poland last december, where they had that big meeting, he said, we strongly believe no country should have to sacrifice their Economic Prosperity<\/a> or Energy Security<\/a> in pursuit of environmental sustainability. In other words, thats the direct clash between nationalism, if you like, the National Self<\/a> interest, making America Great<\/a> again, it could any other country we are talking about, and the wider interests of the Global Economy<\/a> and the global environment. Look, that is just wrong. What we need, actually, is a whole new energy sector. We need a whole new sector to draw co2 down out of the atmosphere. We need to transform every industrial process that were in charge of. That will mean growth. You say yourself its wrong but you were writing on the Copenhagen Climate Council<\/a> website when it set up, every revolution, from wood to coal and coal to oil and oil to renewables, profits have increased. Thats the way the world is. Yes, and thats what i believe. To hold that back and say it is going to destroy our economy. Even if that growth is contributing to the problems the climate is experiencing, its accelerating those problems. If you grow the old economy, you will destroy the climate. If we grow a new clean economy and in the next 30 years ago from carbon emitting to a carbon absorbing economy, we will grow the economy and hopefully head off the worst of the climate crisis. See, between 1980 and 2000, according to the intergovernmental science policy platform on biodiversity and Ecosystem Services<\/a> back in may of this year, which published its report under the aegis of the un, it said 100 million hectares of Tropical Forest<\/a> were lost, mainly in cattle ranchoing, in south america, Palm Oil Plantations<\/a> in South East Asia<\/a> contributed to the decline. Meanwhile, the population has gone up. International trade has increased 10 times over since 1970. To feed, clothe and give energy to this burgeoning world, forests have been cleared, especially in tropical asia. Isnt that tension part of the problem . You may have this desirable ambition for a Global Economy<\/a> but we start with the one weve got and we are trying to deal with the effects of Climate Change<\/a>. The reality is in this world that we will need to use the existing economy to build a new one. So every time you build a wind turbine or you manufacture a solar panel, youre going to use dirty energy. Part of the cost of the transition will be a growth in this dirty old economy. In terms of food, and you talk particularly about the cattle grazing and the destruction of rainforests, that is truly the old economy and the reason that that is growing as it is is because we are not exacting a carbon price on undesirable practices. So we need to make those changes. The Carbon Market<\/a> hasnt worked. No, it hasnt worked. It must work in future. Because that gas thats sitting over our heads now driving this exceptionally hot summer day in europe and driving heatwaves around the world, that gas is not going anywhere unless we get it out. A quarter of it will sit there effectively forever, by human standards, unless we draw it down. The only way of drawing it down is by exacting a carbon price. And is the technology there to do what you want to do at this stage or are we still developing the technology . Thats the great question. No one can say what technologies will work at the gigaton scale. We have small industries, groups like Carbon Engineering<\/a> which make biofuels out of atmospheric c02. Maybe some forestry, maybe, what i am keen on is seaweed farming. We can see the solutions in embryo there but it will be sometime before we know which of those are going to be effective, Cost Effective<\/a> and effective in drawing down co2. Its difficult, is it, to appreciate the point youre making about this technology. In a sense, you went through this when you are for the argument for Geothermal Power<\/a> as a way of actually Generating Energy<\/a> without the price of adding to the emissions, and the money was spent and invested in a mine, that mine collapsed because of an explosion and effectively the investment was lost. Look, thats right and if i could say there, the thing that i didnt see and i was wrong about and a lot of the world didnt see was the power of the manufacturing process to drive costs out of production and so solar and wind, which are both manufacturing based new Energy Solutions<\/a> have really killed everything else, including geothermal, so my little superannuation nest egg was unfortunately lost through that. But it hasnt got you off thinking there are solutions, that we just have to be prepared, perhaps to invest in lots of things simultaneously, to see what works. Thats right, no one can see the future. We know what the outcome is that we cant see clearly the pathway yet. This is part of the problem, isnt it . We have had it expressed to it certain extent sceptically by one British Government<\/a> minister who said people in this country have given up on experts, they dont trust them. Its a global problem and in part its because the dire warnings never quite comes to pass as they are supposed to pass an inner thats good news but it somewhat discredits the people have issued those warnings. I would just save people down to the dire warnings, look at what is happening around you today. Heatwave records being broken across the world. In australia, were looking at having the hottest winter in south eastern australia on record. Here in europe, youve broken numerous records. The warnings are coming true. What we need is action. We need to see this transition of the economy, really start gathering pace in the next few years, otherwise we will miss the chance. Why isnt that action forthcoming then . Why is there a mismatch between what the public says it accept and i think the lowry, very respected survey, the lowry poll found 60 of people say Global Warming<\/a> is a serious and pressing problem, we should take steps now but when it came to the federal election in 2019, the voters comprehensively rejected the oppositions labor Party Proposal<\/a> which was to tackle it by reducing emissions by 45 by 2030. It lost badly. Its primary vote was down at a time when it was expected to win. The winning governments primary vote was down to, to be fair but this is part of the trend where we are seeing government or potential Prime Minister<\/a> is putting themselves forward without effective policy and this is dangerous. What i dont understand and perhaps you can help us because you run the countrys climate organisation, the federal Government Organisation<\/a> until it was abolished by the Abbott Government<\/a> because it was sceptical about the arguments for man made Climate Change<\/a>. Why is it that voters can say on the one hand we think something must be done, yes, it will affect us but devote the opposite way . The reason for that in my view is that we are not bringing the whole community along with us. What we are saying is we want change, people in the cities, those aware of the issues want change and yet you coalminers out there in the regions, you will have to look after yourself in future. We havent had governments come in with comprehensive structural adjustment policies up was seen in germany. In germany, the transition has been pretty flawless and not a single coalmine has lost theirjob. In australia, we havent had that sense of social responsibility just brought people along. Social responsibility is one thing but its easy to have when you are not bearing the cost. One of the economic models that looked at the proposal from the Opposition Labor Party<\/a> in the run up to the federal election in this spring suggested the cost would be about 181 million us, 167,000 jobs. Its not really surprising, people who work in those industries look at those warnings and say of course, i care about the planet, my children and grandchildren but right now, i care about having food on the table, paying the bills and mortgage and if somebody else, not mine to sacrifice myjob, properly. Ive seen this firsthand, ive met coalminers have said to me, im working in a coal mine, i got two children, am i doing the right thing . Of course, i say the first responsibility is to put bread on the table for your family and thats why we as a society need to move Forward Together<\/a> with this and create new industries and its not as if this is difficult in queensland. You could see, i work with groups who want to do innovative a marvellous new things in these areas. Getting Government Support<\/a> to do it is really tough and i dont understand that. Isnt part of the problem is it doesnt matter if australia gets its house in order, or europe for that matter . The statistics suggest half the Greenhouse Gas<\/a> emissions come from three countries, india, the United States<\/a> and china, so the rest of the world can do its bit and that is not going to change. Argument is just because i see things being done wrong, i will do wrong things as well and that makes for a great world. That is totally wrong. We all need to do our bit otherwise how do people have confidence that we all will act. Every country needs to do its proportion. 193 countries, you are right, most of the emissions come from three but why should those three disproportionate burden . Surely this is a collective issue. They should share the disproportionate burden because they are generating most of it. They should bear the proportion that relates to their contribution to the problem. And their contribution is the biggest. Labour its large, yes but that doesnt mean australia should do nothing. Where the 15th largest emitter capita, we are a large emitter if you look at it in that way and we need to do whats right. I mentioned Antonio Guterres<\/a> at the start of this interview. He says, i want to hear about how were going to stop increasing emissions by 2020, and dramatically reduce emissions to reach net zero by mid century. We had the Outgoing British<\/a> Prime Minister<\/a> making a promise much the same. Theresa may said the uk will hit net zero emissions by 2050. It is easy to say these things, theyre predictions, and its hard to deliver on them. It is, and the delivery will be down to industry. You recently saw Andrew Mackenzie<\/a> from bhp say this is a crisis and we need emergency action. Ive lived through 20 years of Climate Action<\/a> where we have not moved the dial a centimetre. Were still headed towards catastrophe. We need something new. So if i was the Prime Minister<\/a> of this country, what i would be doing is getting all the industries together, saying im watching you all, youre all scared to move first because you dont want to lose your advantage. How will we move together collectively . Give me your pledges, so that i can take them to the un and show that were actually going to lead. Because when Companies Make<\/a> pledges, particularly short term ones, they tend to stand by them. And what about governments . There are some interesting remarks from zhou dadi, a member of chinas National Expert<\/a> panel on Climate Change<\/a> last summer, where he said china is the number one emitter of Greenhouse Gas<\/a>es. We hold our hands up, so china will take more action internationally to combat Climate Change<\/a>. He then said china had already reduced emissions intensity relative to gdp by 44 , which is quite handy because he promised to get it down by 45 by next year. So he said a Study Suggests<\/a> it is very likely we can achieve this target before 2025. In other words, peak absolute Greenhouse Gas<\/a> emissions by 2030, we can do it five years earlier. These are political statements. Do you believe them . Look, from china, i am encouraged by them. The big issue for china as i understand at the moment is the growth in the vehicle sector, you know, because the number of new cars coming online is huge. So they seem to be making very Good Progress<\/a> with their electric vehicle manufacturing, and i am hopeful that they can do that by 2025. I mean, that will be the single biggest contribution towards actually achieving what we need to do stay below two degrees. There are a lot of instances where we see the propaganda value of promising things, and often its a bit like pledging when there is a national disaster. Governments pledge money, and then the money never actually appears. And i wonder if these promises are made and there is actually an objective way of measuring them. How will we actually know whether were making the progress we think we are . How is even our poor old mr guterres going to know if he gets all his pledges . Look, no one can know the future, and as a scientist, i can say i can never believe anything until we see the figures on the table. So, when we start seeing those declines, that will be great. But at the moment, were going in the wrong direction in a very bad way. I wanted to ask you about the book that you published a few months ago, that has just been released in paperback europe the first 100 million years, mercifully at only 313 pages. You describe europe not so much as a continent but as an appendix jutting out into the atlantic ocean. Yet, from what you say, it is an appendix with quite a lot in it of learning for us now. What is it about europes experience and its experience of Climate Change<\/a>, dramatic Climate Change<\/a> before, that informs your thinking now . Well, look, europe has been a crossroads of the world. It has been where asia, africa and north america have met over the millennia. It has always been invigorated by things from outside coming in. Its climate has changed dramatically over time, but what we see in the current era is that were seeing a change of such a large scale, its hard to find an analogy to it in the previous fossil record, and of such speed. Its happening 30 times faster than the melting of the ice at the end of the last ice age. So in any agenda, anything thats moving big and fast, it goes to the top of the agenda. So Climate Change<\/a> is big, and its moving very fast. I think what we can say is, yes, europe will adjust. But the fragility of the human cultures that are there, and the individual species that make up europe today, are really at stake. Because many of the critics of the emergency that some say we are now experiencing on Climate Change<\/a> say the globe has experienced two or three degree temperature rises in the past. It has adapted to them. It has not been easy, necessarily, but it has adapted to them. There is no reason to think the earth cant adapt once again. What you are saying is, that process, its as if someone has speeded up time this time around. Itsjust very big and very fast moving. And you and i know, if were crossing a road and youre getting a toy, a boy on a bicycle coming towards you slowly, its no big deal. We can get around it. If youve got a huge semi coming towards you at 100 mph, you know you better get out of the way. And thats what the current climate process is. And the sceptics, quite frankly, they need to stop threatening my children. They need to get out of the way so that we can get some solutions in place. When you say threatening your children, you mean because theyre standing in the way of progress . Yes, theyre standing in the way of progress. They are threatening their own children, as well. Yes. And you talk to people all the time. You are known as one of australias best communicators, certainly one of its most experienced communicators in obtaining complex scientific ideas into terms understandable for the layman i speak as a layman. What is it that theyre not seeing . I dont know. I speak to them and it is as if they are barracking on a football match, it is not as if it is a real world problem. And they are blind to the reality of the situation in ways i cant comprehend. So i do just ask them, just get out of the way, let me get on with giving my children a better future. You know, we can do without your obstruction. In your book youre right that even if the aspirations of the Paris Agreement<\/a> on Climate Change<\/a> are realised, europes coastline will also, some cities will be lost to rising seas. If the nations of the world failed to honour the pledges they have made in paris, the world could return to the blessing conditions, and europes agricultural productivity would then be imperilled just a bit. So it is notjust about the change in the environment, it is the change in the species population as well. Thats right, youve got to think of europe as an appendix of africa, really, in some ways, and of asia. Things come into europe as Climate Change<\/a>. You had hippopotamuses in the thames 100,000 years ago, you know . And those changes will continue. But the thing that worries me is the crops. You look at what has happened in northern germany with extreme weather events and the impact on crops, and you see it around the world. I mean, ourfood security is at stake here, and a political stability. Your book illustrates very intriguingly some of that bestiary that existed in europe a few millennia ago, and there are still those connections, the pig nosed and other turtles in australia were once living here in the you have supported the woolly mammoth revival project that could revive the mammoth on this continent. Why . Im an adventurer. I think this is a wonderful adventure to be on. But even more than the woolly mammoth, the thing i would love to see back here is the straight task elephant. To see back here is the straight tusked elephant. You know, because the european straight tusked elephant, basically it is a hybrid, but its ancestral species still exist in west africa, the west african forest elephant. Africas going to have 4 billion people in 80 years time, where will the space before elephants and lions . Europe will have a stable or lower population. Maybe we need to think about creating space for megafauna in europe. And this and the real welding as well of large tracts of land. Were trying to recapture something that has already been lost . I was slightly deluding ourselves when we think somehow we can rewild the environment and that will solve our problems . I have just been down and see what Charlie Burrell<\/a> is doing down there on his 300,000 acres and it is miraculous. He is bringing back biodiversity at the same time he is creating economic stability, and that is so needed. And in a way that is. We need the new paradigm as it is expressed in that way to succeed. 66 million years ago, around the time europes land bridge with africa disappeared, and even that concept is when we find extraordinary to imagine now, that there was land directly connecting europe and africa and species were travelling backwards and forwards across it, that disappears under the sea. The world, you write, was far warmer than that it is today, even allowing for what we are experiencing right now. Are you optimistic that the earth can survive this experience . Look, the earths systems, really, are fundamentally regulated by bacteria and microorganisms, so its a robust system. But as you go higher up the food chain, you get to ever vulnerable species. So the large species tend to turn over and be more vulnerable. The species that demand a lot from their environment, like humans, tend to be more vulnerable. So ive got no doubt the earths system will survive, but i really worry for our civilisation and i worry for our biodiversity in terms of the charismatic species that we see around us. So those species could vanish if we dont take this more seriously, much sooner. And presumably there comes a point where we wont be able to prevent that. Thats right. How close is that . I think its between ten and 20 years from now. If we havent significantly greened our grid and brought in electric vehicles, and if we havent at least taken the first steps towards large scale carbon drawdown, i think at that point i dont know what i will say to my children. At that point, as a scientist, im out of options. The planet survives. Do humans, in those circumstances . I imagine some humans would survive somewhere, but our civilisation, this great collective civilisation we have built up, i struggle to see how it will survive, because the Resource Requirements<\/a> for maintaining it ijust enormous, and you need stability to deliver those resources. Tim flannery, thank you very much for being with us on hardtalk. Its a pleasure. Thank you. Hello. The weekend ended on a dramatic note weatherwise for some parts of the uk. Some really vicious thunderstorms, especially across the midlands, Northern England<\/a> and scotland, and through the coming week, more of those heavy downpours. Quite hit and miss, there will be some dry weather, but where the rain does show up, well, it could be pretty intense and could bring some further disruption. Low pressure once again taking charge of the scene. You can see the clouds swirling around the centre of that low on our recent satellite picture. Ahead of that main area of low pressure, a couple of bands of showery rain to start monday morning one drifting across the north of scotland, the other moving across east anglia and the south east. Now, this one should tend to clear away as we get into the afternoon, so for much of england and wales were looking at largely dry weather and some spells of sunshine. The odd light shower for wales and the south west. There will be some heavy downpours for Northern Ireland<\/a> and for scotland. Quite a breezy day, highs of 19 25 degrees. Now, into monday evening, we will see some further heavy downpours drifting across shetland. Some drier, clearer weather across the rest of the uk, but showers starting to feed back in from the west by the end of the night. Temperatures 11 degrees there in newcastle, 15 the overnight low in cardiff. Now, remember that area of low pressure i was talking about . Well, by tuesday it really makes its move, drifting across the northern half of the uk, the heaviest showers always in the centre of this area of low pressure. So through Northern Ireland<\/a>, Northern England<\/a> and scotland, thats where were likely to see the most widespread, heavy showers and torrential downpours. Further south, perhaps not as many showers. Quite breezy in the south of the uk, as well, but very light winds further north. That means the showers will be pretty slow moving, especially across northern scotland. Some areas could get a real drenching if a shower sits around for any length of time. Temperatures 18 23 degrees a cooler, fresher feel. Now, wednesday is a similar looking day. Some hefty showers for scotland, Northern Ireland<\/a> and Northern England<\/a>. Some showers further south, but towards south wales and southern england, a better chance of staying predominantly dry through the day. 18 23 degrees. Now, thursday gives something of a chance to draw breath. Im not promising that it will be completely dry, but therell be fewer showers, more sunshine around. But it doesnt last. On friday, we see some heavy and persistent rain swinging in from the west, courtesy of this frontal system. And that leaves us with low pressure again as we head into next weekend, so there will be some heavy bursts of rain and some brisk winds at times. Welcome to bbc news im reged ahmad. Our top stories the man accused of killing 20 people in a terrorist shooting in texas has been charged with capital murder, which means he could face the death penalty. Meanwhile a vigils taken place in ohio for nine People Killed<\/a> in a separate shooting in hong kong, pro democracy protesters urge workers to join their general strike as a day of disruption begins. And i am mariko ooi in hong kong where carrie lam is about to hold a press c0 nfe re nce where carrie lam is about to hold a press conference about the strike, which could be the biggest in decades. And mondays strike at heathrow is suspended as the airport","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia803008.us.archive.org\/28\/items\/BBCNEWS_20190805_013000_HARDtalk\/BBCNEWS_20190805_013000_HARDtalk.thumbs\/BBCNEWS_20190805_013000_HARDtalk_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}