Ten men, aged between 13 and 30, are being questioned on suspicion of murdering pc Andrew Harper in berkshire. Pro democracy protesters take to the streets of hong kong once more theyve been supported by thousands of teachers. Meanwhile, chinese troops have put on a show of military strength in the border city of shenzhen. Jeremy corbyns proposal to be installed as a caretaker Prime Minister to prevent a no deal brexit is rejected by another senior conservative mp. Sudans Ruling Military Council has signed a power sharing deal with the civilian opposition, following months of protests. Now on bbc news its hardtalk with shaun ley. 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 usually 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, the netherlands and germany recording their highest ever temperatures. Globally, the Un World Meteorological Organization 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 theres 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 and 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 yeah, it has. I watch the science and i see things get worse and worse and i see the predictions coming true and i see that times starting to run 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. Now, 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 and instead you focus on in particular working with business to try and get them to create the changes. Its 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 just 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 c02 to the atmosphere, the highest on record over the last 12 months, that is failure for me, right . 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, you were talking about 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 c02 down out of the atmosphere. We need to transform almost 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 was set up, from every revolution, from wood to coal and coal to oil and oil to renewables, profits have increased. Thats just the way the world is. Thats right, and thats what i believe. So to try and hold that back and say it is going to destroy our economy to do this. Even if that growth is contributing to the problems the climate is experiencing, its accelerating those problems. No, no. If you grow the old economy, you will destroy the climate, right . If we grow a new, clean economy and in the next 30 years go from a 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, it published its report under the aegis of the un, it said 100 million hectares of Tropical Forest were lost, mainly from cattle ranching, 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 at huge rates, especially in tropical asia. Isnt that tension part of the problem here . You may have this very desirable ambition for a Global Economy but were stuck with the one weve got and we are also 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 be using dirty energy at the moment. So 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 cattle grazing and the destruction of rainforests, then 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. These are. 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. I mean, no one can say which technologies will work at the gigaton scale. We have some small industries, groups like Carbon Engineering that, for example, make biofuels out of atmospheric c02. Maybe some forestry, maybe some, what ive very keen on is seaweed farming. We can see the solutions in embryo there but it will be some time before we know which of those are going to be effective, Cost Effective and effective in drawing down c02. Its difficult, is it, to appreciate the point youre making about the difficulty of predicting this technology. In a sense, you went through this, didnt you, when you were 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 was invested in a mine, that mine collapsed because of an explosion and effectively the investment was lost. Thats right and look, 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 there was unfortunately lost through that. But it hasnt put you off thinking there are solutions, that we just have to be prepared, perhaps to invest in lots of things simultaneously, to see which one works. Thats right, no one can see the future. We know what the outcome has to be, but we cant yet see clearly the pathway yet. This is part of the problem, isnt it . Where, we have had it to a certain extent, expressed sceptically by, for instance, one British Government minister who said people in this country have given up on experts, they dont trust them. Its a global problem, isnt it, and in part its because the dire warnings never quite comes to pass as they are supposed to pass. And, you know, thats good news but it somewhat discredits the people have issued those warnings. Look, i would just say people doubt the dire warnings, look at whats 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, just today youve broken numerous records. So 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 well miss the chance. Why isnt that action forthcoming then . Why is it theres a mismatch between what the public says it accepts and i think the lowy, very respected survey, the Lowy Institute poll, the most recent annual one in australia, 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 partys 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 walk in. The winning governments primary vote was down too, 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 ran the countrys climate organisation, the federal governments 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, 0n the one hand we think something must be done, yes, we think its bad, yes its going to affect us, but vote 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 as seen in germany. In germany, the transition has been pretty flawless and not a single coalminer has lost theirjob. In australia, we havent had that sense of social responsibility thats let us bring everyone 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 that cost would be about us 181 million. 167,000 jobs. Now, its not really surprising, is it, people who work in those industries look at those warnings and say, actually, of course, i care about the planet, i care about my children and grandchildren but right now, i care about having food on the table, paying the bills and paying mortgage and its somebody elses problem, not mine to sacrifice myjob, to solve this problem. Ive seen this firsthand, ive met coalminers whove said to me, im working in a coal mine, i got two children, am i doing the right thing . And of course, i say to them your 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 can 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 that it doesnt matter if australia gets its house in order, or europe for that matter . The statistics suggest nearly half the Greenhouse Gas emissions come from just three countries, india, the United States and china so the rest of the world can do it its bit and that is not going to change. Well, the 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 of the share. 193 countries, you are quite 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 which relates to their contribution to the problem, right . And their contribution is the biggest right now. Its large, exactly, so they should do that but that doesnt mean australia should do nothing. Were the 15th largest emitter per 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 is trying to get countries to come along to the un in september with very specific proposals. 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 BritishPrime 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 and they are predictions. Its very hard to deliver on them. It is, and the delivery will be down to industry. You recently saw Andrew Mackenzie from bhp recently say this is a crisis, 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 of 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 we are 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 i think by next year. So he said our studies suggest 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 it 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 ver