what would go into a sharp cut in greenhouse gases. what would work differently? it require sacrifice, or benefits we with haven't even imagined? it is inside story.

the countries of the european union have agreed to force themselveses to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gaseses 40% from they were in 1990, and do it in the next 16 years. some countries will vugle to meet the targets layed out in the plan, others are already zooming ahead. but today we with wonder if the united states wanted to commit itself to such a target could that goal be reached without huge expense, without enormous sacrifice, without a lower standard of living. is promising to reach such a goal grounded in achievable incremental steps toward efficiency, or a techno logical hail mary pass. crossing your fingers that someone will eventually invent something, and we'll all sit down to a nice carbon neutral free lunch.

they have agreed to slash their greenhouse emissions by 40%, and do it by 2030. >> it was not easy, not at all. but we with managed to reach a fair decision. >> it sets europe on an ambitious yet cost effective climate, and energy path. climate change is one of the biggest challenges of man kind. ultimately, this is about survival. >> the plan will be legally binding on every member state and includes over goals such as producing 27% of the e.u. energy from renewable sources and improving energy efficiency by 27%. this puts it

up firmly. the path was not an easy one, it had it's own concerns. from the united kingdom certain benchmarks had to be voluntary, as they continue to battle anti-e.u. sentiments at home countries like sweden and germany are already meeting or beating targets, their leaders wanted stricker measures. and then there was poland, it threatened to block the deal entirely, unless it included a complex set ovalnesses. must to their domestic energy comes from coal. german chance her explained the compromise friday. countries will have to contribute more, and those who haveless will have to contributeless. it is a bit similar to emerging economies. the countries that are lagging behind in regards to the progress. have to be given the possibility not to reduce quite so much.

there is if you like a target zone between zero and 40%, and lit be broken down per capita. >> alongside the enthusiasts there are critics some environmentalists say the plan doesn't go far enough, to security an 80% cut of emissions by 2050. smaller country worry that goaling could have a negative economic impact. a mammoth step towards a cleaner planet. >> there was also a will to convince the united states, china, and other countries that europe could be a reference and if your had not found an agreement, how can we get the united states, china, and other countries emerging countries, those who have questions, europeans had shown weakness. >> according to the global carbon project, greenhouse gas emissions are on course to reach their highest levels in 2014. that may explain some of the sense of urgency,

resonating from brussells. even if you remain unconvinced at this late date, that greenhouse gases are the ding many scientists say they are, what could be bad about a steep terrorist crease in the uses of fossil fuels that reduce burning of finite resources, with stepping back from rolling the dice, that we with can keep on doing what we with have been doing, with no risk. how to cut greenhouse gas emissions and still have a nice life, this time on the program. joining us for is that conversation. nor the climate action network europe. director of renewal energy and footprint outreach. and bourn long born, director of the consensus center. let me start with with you, when the negotiating was over, were there

countries that left the table feeling that they had conceded more than they wanted to when they joined those talks. >> yeah, i believe so. i mean there were a lot of countries that would have gone further than what came out this morning, but unfortunately given that the e.u. is a european union of 28 member states you have to look at the kind of concessions that you need to make. without with going into detail about which countries there were there were with some that were with slightly unhappy, be uh in the political reality came out satisfied i guess. >> i'm sorry, is it a tougher thing to ask some countries to make these promises to try to hit these targets because after all, inside those 28, there are many poorer nations and many richer ones? >>

well, i mean, i think when you look at the long term perspective of things, it's not necessarily looking just at the g.d.p., and whether they are in a position right now. and loxening at what we need to do to faze out all fossil fuels. we are looking at just not the health and environment, but also there's economic gains to be made by having ambitious targets. so by just focusing on those that rely heavily on coal, we with can provide alternatives and better options to kind of replace that industry. so i think whatever losses that they fear they make, there are gains to be made. >> the head of the european council, said when it was all over, this is the world's most ambitious cost effective fair climate energy policy ever agreed. is he right?

>> woman, he is certainly right that it is the big zest the most ambitious, and the biggest part is that the division has said oh, 2,020, the 20% reduction was easy, now comes the hard part getting to 40%. so it is definitely difficult, but let's remember, it is going to do almost no good for climate if you run this as a standard climate model. it will be unmeasurable, we are estimated about 1/50th of 1 with degree fahrenheit by the end of the century. if the union does everything it promised. and remember, the 2020 deal, that just went% cut, is estimated cost around $280 billion a year. so when climate commission says this is going to get much harder, it is reasonable to assume that lit be even more expensive. so a lot of money spent,

very little going to happen that's not really something that i think we with should apply. >> but at all these conferences the big emitters all circle each other, each watching the other to see what the other does. doesn't somebody have to make the first move? has the e.u. in effect placed the marker that may entice the united states? china? eventually india into playing as well with? you are right, that's the argument that almost everyone uses and it has some validitien but remember, the european union has already done this before. and basically, no one else followed. and so the reality is the e. u. stepping down a road that has already failed for about 20 years. and then we with are saying let's try doing it another 16 years. in some ways if you are serious about doing something about the environment, you have to

realize when to stop flockenning a solution that has failed and start looking at other solutions that will be cheaper, and much more effective. and quite frankly be popular with with the elect story rate also. >> we just heard that some countries wanted to go further, from bourn. that maybe this isn't worth doing at all. which is it? we now they could have taken much stronger action, with economic growth. the key thing that we have all been looking for is the ability to decouple economic growth from pollution, from greenhouse pollution. and what we see happening is that is possible. we already see that happening. we see that proof of conflict.

they shall recycled from a decade ago, they are not really based in modern facts about the cost of renewables, what we are talking about is a shift from the fossil fuels to renewables. it isn't necessarily an additional cost, and in fact, when you incorporate the cost of climate change, into these costs what we are talking about is safing money. >> look, leaking out of the negotiations came word that some countries were ready to go faster, some like poland were saying look, almost all about energy generation. could we with cut a deal, where seattle, and oregon, and new york state, might be ready to go on one track while virginia and mississippi and tennessee and kentucky are ready to go on another? and we somehow cobble something together?

>> absolutely. we are already in some ways seeing that kind of differentiated action happening at the city level. so we with have seen cities like mall low alto california. get to 100% renewable energy, with local sources. that's already happening. that's the equivalent of one with hundred% renewable electricity. we with have cities in the united states that are already doing that, with a very high standard of living. so you can see that action possible, in many places and then we also see in ore places there are 91 communities in illinois so they are ever doing it by buying credits so we can see that action happening in

a differentiated sense at the city level. >> heck we come back after this break, we will continue our look at the steps the e.u. may take to reach it's reduction goals and ask whether those same things could be dodge in the u.s. and ask have we even done the easy >> on the stream >> the devastating but less obvious toll ebola is taking on africa's food supply that could reach a crisis state and it's impact on local business and economy >> the stream on al jazeera america

>> pain killer addiction on the rise >> i loved the feeling of not being in pain >> deadly consequences >> the person i married was gone >> are we prescribing an epidemic? >> the last thing drug companies wanted anybody to think was that, this was a prescribing problem >> fault lines, al jazeera america's hard hitting... >> today they will be arrested... >> ground breaking... they're firing canisters of gas at us... award winning investigative documentary series... opioid wars only on al jazeera america

estimate, in subsidies and even by 2035, in a very optimistic scenario, they estimate we will be paying twice as much. so it isn't just like we are around the verge of paying for itself, because then we wouldn't have the problem. the real issue is this harms the poor people the most. they have much much higher energy prices. marketly because they have focusing so much on renewables. last winter, about 1 million old people had to stay in bed longer than they wanted according to a survey,

that shows they needed to stay under their bed covers because they were freezing, they didn't -- light up their home -- they didn't warm up their whole home, but only one room, that has real consequence. and a lot of really rich people can say yeah, i will pay more, but a lot of poor peep can't. >> well, it is true there's a disproportionate impact, and poor people of a major phenomena, and this is climate change, that's very intuitive to people in the united states. when we look at who was hit by katrina, who was hit by sandy. those that are hit first and worst, are the poorest. and it is important that you incorporate all these costs. with nobody needs to incorporate those costs we bear them as a society. as a whole. that can't continue, when

you actually incorporate those -- what they call the social cost of carbon, the cost of climate change, what you see is renewables come out really well with, and there was a case in minnesota where they very specifically looked at the data. it wasn't about rhetoric, it was on data. when you take into account that solar can be added you don't have to build a huge power plant. you can just add it as you need it. when you take into account that solar energy is created mostly at the time when people are using energy, and the fuel itself is free. it was deemed to be cheaper than natural gas, and that's the case when you look at the whole picture. and absolutely, i think that all of us need to keep in mind, the impacts of everything we do on poor communities and that is the very reason why so many many of us care about it. >> so poor people would be asked to bear costs involved with a switch in

our energy mix, but they are also asked to bear the cost of things like heat waves. where they die in greater proportion. >> well that plumes an additional cost to renewable energy. and i think that they are -- we have seen in recent studies that it is questionable whether there is actually an additional cost, you are right, in a net sense. n the united states, part of the narrative is if we with make a big change, in the way we power our vehicles, our homes, it is going to be a net los to me before it's a net gain. a lot of the conversation among common people act the changes in esto rebuild our mix in this country, is a narrative of loss. is there something that you can put into place of that to change the way americans look at how to pay for having a different way of fueling our lives?

yes. i mean i can only add to what kaya has said, just recently, two weeks ago, the european commission ought where a report about the cost of subsidies. and it came up in 2012 alone, public expenses like the dirtiest form of energy were with 10 billion euro. so you are looking the framing of this debate to show that we are actually as citizens some of our public money is going to dirty energy, which has massive impactses on social, health, environmental sectors. and therefore to look at what can be gained. and i think europe can do a lot more, i think the e.u. should be pushing to do a lot more, in showing there are so many benefits. and especially showcasing this to the u.s., and other countries. for sure, we see a lot of job growth, a lot of

expansion iner that will be stalled with the decision that came out this morning. they can see the benefits. if we can look to those, we can really open up the debate for the public to learn more about those. >> we will have more inside story after this brief break, when we with come back, invasions in the pipeline that will change the way you power your hones cars and businesses by 2030, whether the e.u. will pioneer strategies for emission reductions that will be followed by other big emitters. stay with us. federal authorities have charged seven people with conspiring with al qaeda. >> since 9/11 the us has spent has spent billions of dollars on domestic counter-terrorism operations. >> i wanted to be in on the big game and to be paid top-dollar for it. that's it. >> many of these involved targeted informant led stings. >> to them, everyone in the muslim community is a potential informant or a potential

terrorist.

welcome back to inside story on al jazeera america. i'm wray war ever resident. we are looking at the new european union target for greenhouse gas emissions. a 40% reduction from the benchmark, by 2030.

can they do it and still maintain their standard of living and grow in the places where poverty is still widespread. >> could we do it here in the u.s., and would it mean keeping nuclear energy heavily in the mix? still with us, climate action net work in europe, director for the renewable outreege. are we not looking at some techno utopian space age was bang thing, but some fair lagunes stood technologies that are just going to be able to come to scale rather quickly? h we be able to chip away with inventions that are >> absolutely. so we with already see with with solar in this company, that it is middle income people,

primarily, who are deploying and that's because there's been a real invasion, but it isn't in technology, it is in the financial instruments that take away the upfront cost, so there was just a report that came out last week, in fact, showing that it is manely middle income people that are are taking advantage of that technologies that we already have, being deployed. we with are able to do that with with the economics working out. and the real bare year here is a political one. there are special interests preventing us from doing this people often say, well, if this is the case if you save money immediately, if we all save money why hasn't it happened there are a large fossil fuel companies that are very involved who want it to not happen. will nuclear energy inevitably have to remain a large part of the mix? for big emitters are going to try to reach

targets like the ones the e.u. set forth this morning? the problem is partly a lot of populations don't want it, certainly after fukushima, and typically it is more expensive than both fossil fuels and the others. part of it, andas to be a bizarrely, stupid probably that germany cut it all out. because they have already paid for it, and now they can just cut their c. 02 dramatically, it will be part of it but it won't be a big part of it, we need to remember, it is no such that pangals are free, they are free for the middle class, yes, because that's because everybody else subsidized them.

are renewables just part of the answer? in a mix with many other things? or do we have to train our energies there you heard someone really speaking up for them very strongly, and sounding a little skeptical about their ethicacy without subsidy, how do we move ahead. >> i think the important thing is to look at our -- look at the issue of climate change, and how we save. and that is recognized by the claimant change. and the answer is renewal energy. and additional to that is energy efficiency, which hasn't been mentioned yet. these are key and they are two very reenforcing areas that can build up. and replace the need for nuclear. i can't speak to it exclusively, but together

issue. >> the cheapest power plant of all is the one with you don't have to build. are we going to be able to keep our milk cold and our vegies fresh, more cheaply in five years than we with do today. >> absolutely. using less energy always saves you money. and in this country, if everybody pictures in their mind's eye the skyline of new york city, what you are picturing at night is a bunch of lights on. and that's not because everybody is burning the midnight oil, that is because there aren't motion dedeck tors on those light switches. there is so much room for increased energy efficiency, and reduced energy consumption in this country. so we can can save a lot of money that way. and we are already seeing corporate america doing that. >> thank you for joining us today, before we add today's inside story, i want to remind you, our

journalists have been held in prison in egypt for 300 days. we'd like to encouraging you to find out more about them, and their story, you can do that by visiting our web with page, america.aljazeera.com. please follow the campaign share the message that journalist is not a crime. that brings us to the end of this edition, thank you for being with with us, program may be over by the conversation continues. we want your ideas and your feedback about the issues raised on this or any day's show, log on to our facebook page, send us your thoughts on twitter, our hanle is a.j. inside story a.m. owe yo can reach me directly at ray swarez news, we with will see you before the next inside story in washington i am ray swarez.

asia happens president imposes a state of emergency after the military suffers its biggest loss of life in decades. ♪ ♪ hello and welcome to al jazerra live from our headquarters in doha. i am elizabeth, also ahead. the number of cases in the ebola outbreak passes 10,000. amnesty condemn another bloody stain on iran's human rights record after a 26-year-old woman is hanged. plus. >> reporter: i have about a