tv Inside Story 2019 Ep 310 Al Jazeera November 7, 2019 3:32am-4:01am +03
former twitter employees with spying on behalf of saudi arabia's governments they're accused of accessing the accounts of thousands of users including prominent critics of the saudi government at least $47.00 people have been killed after an attack on mining employees in burkina faso a convoy carrying stuff from a canadian on's mine was targeted in the eastern part of the country they were being escorted by the military fighting with groups linked to iceland al qaida has surged in the last year several people have been killed after an attack on a ports in western yemen you see rebels are being blamed for launching missiles and drones at the facility in. it's the 1st major attacks in saudi arabia's aramco all facilities for hits in september that's your state stay stay with us here and i'll just. after inside story.
our planet is facing a climate emergency that's the dial warning from thousands of scientists who say we're not taking climate change seriously their report says unless we change the way we live humanity faces untold suffering so what will it take to save planet earth and world governments and world leaders listen to these latest warnings this is insightful. but i want to come to the program i'm daryn jordan the world is facing a clear and existential threat a climate emergency that's the stark warning by
a global group of 11000 scientists their report gives simple and immediate steps that could make a difference they say the climate crisis is accelerating faster than most scientists expected it's closely linked to wealthy lifestyles and excessive consumption people must eat less meat emissions must be cut and fossil fuels replaced without action they say large areas of earth could become uninhabitable but scientists say there is hope on the global protest movement can bring change well let's not get the thoughts of our guest joining us in penang malaysia mean iraq munchies the climate change program coordinator at the world network from reading in the u.k. elizabeth robinson she's a professor of environmental economics at the university of reading and in london doug he's the policy director and chief scientist at greenpeace u.k. i well welcome to the program doug paulette me start with you if i may that from greenpeace how significant do you think this endorsement by this group of 11000
scientists is and why why are climate experts now ratcheting up the language to call this an emergency. well i think for a long time we've seen scientists try to play the kind of the. be kind of withdrawing from the political system and saying we can put our information into the political system and this is going to make it work and i think what we're seeing is that a lot of the scientific community and the broader academic community are beginning to worry that this is in no way big enough or significant enough as an intervention from their side to do the sort of things that they can see coming up because as they say this is going to be a threat to. essentially the whole of humanity in the way humanity actually operates and they can't just sit on the sidelines anymore they have to be saying look you created you need to do things now now because the sort of things i say not things that people haven't said before you know you refer to the protest movement
in the in the introduction. a lot of the same kind of messages a been coming from there and i simply adding. an important level of academic rigor if you'd like saying if we're going to tackle this problem we have to do the following things all fossil fuels all the nature of forest conservation. on consumption like it was an aviation and a lot of diet so i think isn't this a shift in tone because the the emergency is becoming more of an emergency with every passing day all right we'll come back to the issue of the politics of climate change a little bit later in the program doug let me bring in mina raman there in malazan mina does using the word emergency add a sense of urgency to this global crisis suddenly i do the dead we all recognize the urgency the deeply felt the developing were the communities living in a given instance we add many concerned about the rising sea level and what that
would do to many of the highly in these things or even the coastlines the millions live. so it is actually quite frightening in quite astonishing in terms of their recent signs of reading and what did the emergency call in the urgency call is very important in this part of the elizabeth robinson from reading university i mean this is the 1st time a large group of scientists have formally come out and cold climate change an emergency so it is interesting and significant as doug was saying there but how different do you think this report is from previous ones because we've heard much of the debate before haven't we. that's true i think the debate has been around for a long time and to some extent for quite a long time now we've known what the problem is and we we've also really known what we want to do what we haven't seen is action so we've seen commitments we've seen the paris agreement commitment we've seen our former prime minister may committing
to a net 0 by 2050 but we haven't seen action and so here i suppose on the one hand it's a call to action and this is change in terminology of a cabinet that's quite important now that instead of us talk about global warming and talk about something it's sort of happening in the future yes we might be making effects now but it's on something will happen to us in the future it's really saying no this is happening now and so i think one it's this strong voice of scientists coming together and to i think it's this message that we can pick up the signs of the climate crisis already and one of very powerful things i think about their report is this idea that let's track these indicators and show what progress we're making but also that there are some impacts of climate change that we're already picking up and these a serious impact but i was just going to the other thing to say is that that the terms climate emergency climate crisis to some extent you know the city in the west we might say well you know it's getting a bit warmer or the weather is a little more extreme but i think it's still hard for people to act but when we talk about the opportunities the opportunities to be concrete to craft
a world in 203040 years that looks a lot more a better place to live in terms of the actions we need to take anyhow to mitigate climate change that also can put quite a positive spin on encouraging people to take actions so rather than saying you know we're incurring a cost now we're saying actually we're investing in a better future so i think it's also put the way the message is sent the dog about to you for a 2nd because the timing of this report is quite interesting i mean the latest study this study was released on the same day that satellite data was published showing that last month was the warmest october ever on record does this suggest do you think that we are at some kind of a critical tipping point in terms of global warming. i think what we're saying is that there's this succession of months something. record was was following on from several of the monthly records which with all the step a so i think what we're seeing is is a kind of culmination of what we've been doing over several years sorry over
several decades leading to heightened temperatures across the globe now that we've done or going. like that and that there are sort of thing and then it might plateau for a while i think the thing is we don't we know this warming now we start to see the effects in terms of wildfires ice melting arctic and talk to greenland and so on. we might be lucky and it kind of plateaus for a while and we get we can get our act together in terms of cutting emissions but we can't know that for sure what we but it's definitely at a point where it's becoming much more real and as elizabeth said that these effects all becoming very real right now in a number of countries so we haven't got any time to waste mina let's bring it back into the discussion we had because we're told that indicators like meat production and meat consumption global tree loss as well as fossil fuel consumption a collectively telling us much more i mean how important are those factors in the
overruled picture do you think. well i do think that we need to look at this in terms of who is actually causing much of the emissions problem has been a history do it in this is why in the climate change convention in the barras agreement there is a common but differentiated responsibility that developed developing countries talk about and they talk about equity the industrial revolution led to much of the emissions in the past and there is a historical response ability in the fact of much of the emissions that we see today have been there from history and the impacts that that via facing already is the result of the history that has happened so the people who are least responsible for climate change are now facing the impacts particularly the poor so you know if you look at than 20 percent of the rich won't contributing to 80 percent of the global emissions you can actually see the stuff in equity in terms of the problem
so if we want to talk about rectifying the problem we do have to talk about the rich having to pay much more and not pass the burden on to the poor now we talk of meat consumption and how we need to change our dietary patterns but for a lot of the developing world the hungry of the developing low they have no food to eat so how do you talk about the changing of diet in the hungry well i mean that's an interesting contradiction is about your your head that i would like to come back on that. i think i think it is made just a very important point one there's the moral obligation of hiring from countries too there's the reality that per capita emissions in higher income countries are just dramatically higher than low income countries and yes when we talk about quite often people natured use their meat consumption we do need to nuance that if we look in higher income countries most of us are eating far more meat than we need to and there's quite
a lot of evidence that we could have on the consumption improve our health and reduce emissions at the same time so certainly at a planetary level yes we need to look at a more on plant based diet and the that the reality is that if we don't reduce our emissions globally the countries that are going to be particularly harmed by climate change are those low income countries so we've already seen that that that crop production is going to be most harmed in countries which are already food is secure that these large shocks that we see sort of propagating through the food system such as in 2008 it was it was droughts in australia that led to a food crisis in 2008 and now people living in the u.k. like myself it was probably just a little ripple i don't think we even noticed food prices going up but if you were living in haiti this was this was a tsunami of increasing food prices a country which is already food insecure highly reliant on food imports and the 2008 food crisis little riots and actually the toppling of the prime minister so in terms of food security the fundamental issue is that crop yield potential the
ability of our crops to actually build sea to keep increasing yields is starting to fall into global level the countries most likely to be hit of those low income countries so it's a very nuanced conversation on the one hand higher income countries yes we can reduce our consumption needs on the other hand i mean low income low income countries it's more how do we help to keep those yields up in an era of climate change let's just look a bit deeper into the report if we can doug this is the 1st time we're now seeing a climate change report that addresses the controversial and prickly subject of population control why is this such a political hot potato within the climate change debate do you think. well i think it's it's become a population issue. that i think it's an indicator i don't think it's a useful way to frame the debate that when that's the way that's one of the cultural proceeds within the environment movement some people to think that it's a useful way to talk about tackling emissions and i would actually disagree with
that because there are issues around human rights and fundamental ones of climate justice as have already been referred to about where responsibility should lie i mean you know frankly if we're going to reduce the population the root the population needs to be reduced in wealthy developed countries but i would actually disagree that it's a useful way to look at it because. it has much to do with the technology and lifestyle. in developed countries and there are a whole different set of issues that apply in developing countries where things like infrastructure welfare states and so on don't exist so it is a controversial issue because there are different ways of looking at the climate problem. now and i think it's as an indicator looking at capita consumption and so on i think it shows a responsibility can lobby but as
a way of saying how we tackle it i think that's where the problems start mean i'd like to throw that point to you because the idea of trying to influence human population growth as doug said is hugely controversial and even un climate negotiators have avoided this but can we still afford to ignore its. well i do think this is where we need to come to the question of is it population though is it was consuming it was producing the emissions most of all this is an old debate actually if you remember from the rio days it says that there was this real summit in 1902 the same problem the population problem was posed as the major problem for the environmental crisis but very clearly it was already debunked quite early on if you look at the lifestyle of the rich american for instance what the american rich consume and east is it's much many many many more times come back
to a chinese or an indian or even a kenyan so population is not the question it's the who is causing much of most of the consumption in the production of the emissions so i do think that the population debate actually clouds the problem and the what's the problem the blame on the developing world which is largely where the population is so i don't think that the population debate is not helpful and it actually mischaracterizes the problem where we have to see the rich of the world the 20 percent of the rich consuming motel the resources including the carbon emissions all right stay with us won't you because i want to expand on the political timing and the political impact of this report the scientists warning was published a day off the us president donald trump began the formal process of withdrawing from the paris climate accord with a pact was agreed by 185 countries back in 2015 to fight climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions washington presented its withdrawal letter to the united
nations on monday but it'll take at least a year to form in the u.s. the only country to pull out so far let's go back to our guests a duck policy start with you how significant then is the timing of this report given that president trump has begun the formal process of taking the u.s. out of the past climate deal. i think the reports 73 reminded that. the weight of scientific evidence is very firmly on the side of doing something very soon and very profoundly about climate emissions what the trump pull are which shows which anybody who pays attention to what's going on is that they don't really care about scientific evidence they're going to back their own prejudices and the fossil fuel industry. it's not so the trump let's let's be clear that trauma from paris or attempt to pull out is really young helpful but i think we're also seeing other countries around the world. using it galvanizing thing to step up to the
plight so it's you know if there are 2 sides to face all of it of course it's really on helpful of course it be far better if they stayed in of course it would be better if the white house was behind domestic emissions reductions over the counter side it's forced other people to say u.s. leadership is not going to be here we need to step up and ate also has meant. almost. in reaction to it that u.s. state sold particular piece to start saying well we're going to step up and do stuff in america anyway elizabeth robinson president trouble with said look the polish climate deal was bad for american jobs and it was bad for the american economy what's this telling us though broadly about the political game of balancing economic growth with the need to radically address climate change. oh i don't know
what is tell us our bounce economic growth i think it tells us that politicians aren't willing to make the commitments that are needed but it but do we do see that tension in the u.k. i'm just think you know that the arguments for sort of the expansion of heathrow heathrow for 3rd runway and the idea that will create jobs and growth and yet you know that will directly increase emissions we look at this sort of argument over you know fracking or no fracking the jobs versus the climate so it's but i think it you know i agree with what doug said it's. in most can for many high income countries it's actually economically sensible to embrace actions that mitigate climate change so those are huge opportunities in the future so one in terms of if we look at economic growth and we look at say air pollution so you know we've seen we've seen the images in delhi we know in london and i live in london in the emissions you know we we we exceed our emissions sort of what's the legal missions well before the end of the year every year so i think it's it's a false logic to say that that if we put our country 1st what we do is actually
ignore climate right and not take those actions to mitigate climate change the economic opportunities of mitigating climate change are very high. meena recommend . i mean we're not being told to reduce travel we've been told to stop eating meat and possibly have children with population control that's a very difficult message to sell to ordinary people and the politicians are how do you get that message across in countries like malaysia that. well i do i think that what we are saying to people here and i think they're already feeling it if you look at the indigenous peoples of the coastal communities who are beginning to feel the impacts of the heat the long drought the heatwaves the i mean people are already feeling it so the point really is for us in the developing world how do you make the transition it's easy to see in the rich that you can you know you just have to decouple from economic growth but here the question really is one of how do you mean tivo how do you reach sustainable development meaning livelihoods and jobs
and and income at the same time in the carbon constrained world for that to happen you do need the transition which is true in financial transfers from the developed world to the developing world you don't need the money the technology chaunce the so that we can leapfrog and not make the mistakes of the west but what we see not happening enough and fast enough his is for the financing in for the technologies to flow but that's only one part of the problem the other part of the problem is that patient many of our countries have got nor options the floods come or the heel of the fires come and you have to respond i have no choice let's look at philippines and the category 5 hurricane storms people have to rebuild their lives and they have to do this with money so how do you actually make. people lead a dignified life and that to me is fundamental in terms of international climate
agreement so for the trumpet ministration to just walk out it's really plankton demi millions and the of people around the world to climate in just a minute ago and that's immoral really it's it's an interesting point you make me and let me come back to us but for a 2nd and stay with with that with that the terms in terms of the politics of climate change in the u.k. those are the polls on december the 12th different this could be the u.k.'s 1st general election where climate change plays a much more defining roles of voters. i think it might have been if there wasn't another big issue on our minds at the moment. it's really frustrating on the one hand we see certain parties we see we see the liberal democrats we see the green party very emphatically talking about climate change and the need to do something about the climate emergency and recognizing that as investments in clean technologies investments in climate change mitigation those investments that will make our country actually more equitable
a more healthy place to live in and at the same time reduce climate change and of course recognizing our obligations to low income countries. if we didn't have the distraction of bricks it i think climate change would have actually been very much on the radar but but the reality is there are other issues in the u.k. that are going to completely distract from this so on the one hand it's really good that the political parties or some of them at least are really emphasizing the importance of tackling climate change but on the other hand i think i think distracted dog part let me get a final thought from you i mean is there still time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or are we already too late do you think. well it depends what you mean by too late i mean we've already seen the want to agree of global warming. for some long you know talk a lot of coral reef starts already to collect some people who are on the receiving end of floods. like him by some twit at the recent tight food that's already too
late. but for every half a degree every point one of a degree that we can keep climate change of the control that she's still a woman compared to what otherwise would have been the case can we still make the paris target a point hike degrees yes but it meets technically it's possible it will take a humongous effort at mena raman in penang a final thought from you i mean scientists are asking us really for a transformative change from humanity is this report do you think like to make governments and ordinary people in malaysia sit up and take note i do many people are beginning to be attention in the every sitting up only because the feeling the impacts i think the all the that the northern movement in terms of well the climate strikes and and so on but that's important because politicians in the north will listen to their people same as what we are doing in terms of civil society and social movements pushing our own governments to do more but for developing
countries until much more financial resources got and this is a case of the green climate fund the greens it's the mall money there isn't a green climate fund them all the more that the developing world can do and so it makes our life easier i'm going to the government and i take you cannot do business as usual anymore you need the transmission but that has to come with money inside and by names and technology all right it's a it's an interesting conversation but i'm afraid we have to leave it there for now mina raman in penang in london and elizabeth robinson in writing thank you very much indeed for your time. and thank you too for watching you can see the program again any time by visiting our website al-jazeera dot com and for further discussion go to our facebook page that's facebook dot com forward slash a.j. inside story and you can also join the conversation on twitter handle is a j inside story with me down jordan and the rest of the team here goodbye from.
from the london broadcasts and time to special guests and conversation they only want to protect life if we're not going to move into all your new old unprompted uninterrupted black useful for as long as we've been fighting back have been labeled as terrorist intimately reflecting on the issues of our time to feel like to think that their nothingness and is not as ugly as someone else's nationals and studio be unscripted coming soon on al-jazeera what are you protesting about how
does this in question whether on line well i face minstrelsy i'm directly out of the crowd like it's playfully or if you join us on 2nd this is an attack on academic freedom and on our ability to do research and teach freely this is a dialogue myanmar is not making it very welcoming for people to come back everyone has a voice in this change is real 'd the discussion is real and our in europe we talk about the solutions on al-jazeera just off one of caracas his main highways the media media family collects as much water as possible from the mountain above. a nationwide blackout left millions without power a regular water supplies. but this water is not portable the health ministry is recommending people treat it with chlorine but with none available at the piano maybe hopes that boiling it 1st will make it safe for her family to drink dr might
be a little bit says the increased consumption of untreated water in the last 3 weeks is making an already catastrophic situation worse of anyone in norway to read. we don't have the precise numbers yet but we know that in the public and private hospitals there's been an acute increase of cases of severe diarrhea that require hospitalization including children under 2 years of age which could be fatal local and international public health experts describe the crisis as a complex humanitarian emergency. a story 1400 years in the make. a story of succession and leadership.
tells the story the foundation and the emergence of an empire. the caliph episode one on a jazzier. scene in doha the top stories on al-jazeera the impeachment inquiry and zonal trump a stepping up a gear with televised public hearings shantel to begin next week one of the 1st set to appear is bill taylor america's top diplomat in ukraine in nearly release costa testimony taylor said it was his clear understanding that the president had with withheld military aid to ukraine that's because he wants it to investigate his political rival job eyes an aunt a son who was working there heidi jocasta has more from washington d.c. bill taylor is the.