hello and welcome to this bbc news special programme on climate change. today's inter—governmental panel on climate change report details what must be done to restrict the rise in global temperatures. it challenges every person in the world to make a difference. it says there must be "unprecedented" changes in how people live to prevent catastrophic changes to the planet. i'm going to be talking to dr corinne le quere, professor of climate change science and policy at the university of east anglia and director of the tyndall centre for climate change research. she is also a member of the uk committee on climate change, an independent body set up to advise the uk government and devolved administrations on emissions targets. and we'll also be talking to dr kirsten zickland from vancouver, who is a lead author on chapter one of the report. she is an associate professor, simon fraser university. they will both be here to answer your questions. if you have any

questions on climate change, you can send them to us now. text 61124, email askthis@bbc.co.uk, or tweet using the hashtag #bbcaskthis. first, our science correspondent pallab ghosh reports on what's been described as a global wake up call for the planet. the ipcc has warned of two possible futures for our planet. in the two degree world, there is severe drought, there's more flooding in the northern hemisphere, people are poorer and have less food, and all the coral in our seas has gone. as things stand, that's the world we are heading towards, the scientists warn. one of the very clear messages of this report is that, inevitably, at the rate we're going, it's quite likely we are going to release too much carbon, burn more carbon than we can afford to burn

if we are going to stabilise temperatures at 1.5 degrees, so we are going to have to work out how to get rid of carbon dioxide without just dumping it in the atmosphere. to avoid damaging global warming, the scientists call for much more renewable energy. the development of transport that uses less fuel, and new ways to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. all that is happening, but not, according to the ipcc, at the speed it needs to. the scientists are saying to everybody, we have to accelerate our action to tackle climate change, because if we don't, by the middle of this century, we could be facing a situation that we simply will not be able to cope with. at a time when china and india are growing their economies, the planet's net emissions of c02 needs to be zero by 2050 to prevent a two degree world. up to 7 million square kilometres of land will be needed for energy crops, around the size of australia, and the technology needed to remove enough carbon from the atmosphere has not been developed.

the report is important because it also shows that there are options we need to take, it shows it is possible to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees if we have great transitions across the economy, if we change the way we behave such as eating less red meat and eating more fruit and vegetables. with the backdrop of president trump taking the us out of the paris climate change agreement, avoiding climate change will be difficult but not impossible. the question is whether national leaders have the political will to bring about the changes recommended, or it will be too little, too late. pallab ghosh, bbc news. so with the world's climate scientists calling for urgent action, what can you do, on a day—by—day level, to help make a difference? one way is to eat less meat, because meat production produces a huge proportion of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. rather than drive to work, walk, ride a bike or take public transport

to reduce your carbon footprint. another option is to fly less. air travel pumps carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. insulating your home properly is another good way to save energy and help the planet. putting solar panels on your roof can make your energy consumption more sustainable over the long—term. and using led lights — which often last up to ten years — is another practical way to make your home more energy efficient. those are things you can be thinking about. but who will be changing the way they live? we asked some shoppers on oxford street in central london today how they had adapted their lifestyle in the face of global warming. not enough. you know, i try and do the basic things like short showers, turning off the lights, and i studied politics in the hope that someday, i can make a difference on that scale but i don't think it's enough. i do eat meat, but i don't eat it, like, every day. even i don't eat every week.

but i can't say that all people have to follow my example. so i'm trying to do these small steps. i mean, like, i do have opportunity to take tube, i'd rather take tube rather than to call my uber. it's my small contribution to this problem. we're looking for an electric car. we've already got a hybrid car. we're very economical all the way around, really. yeah. we eat fresh food. we try to avoid processed food. we do avoid processed food. i gave up my car a couple of years ago. i recycle, use paper straws. yeah, i try to use less plastic. we recycle massively. like, genuinely recycle. we recycle textiles... i noted this is really stupid. you're either going to be using a plastic toothbrush or electric toothbrush or a bamboo toothbrush. and then there's so many things that you can make...

use less water. drink filtered water if you're in london and it's a hard water. there are so many minor changes that if everybody made, it would make such a monumental impact. it's an idea of what people are doing here in london. let's speak to my guests now. joining me from norwich is corinne le quere, professor of climate change science and policy at the university of east anglia and director of the tyndall centre for climate change research. she is also a member of the uk committee on climate change — an independent body set up to advise the uk government and devolved administrations on emissions targets. welcome to you. also joined this evening by dr kirsten zickland from vancouver, who is a lead author on chapter one of the report. she is an associate professor, simon fraser university. thanks very much indeed to both of you forjoining us. if i could start with you, dr zickland. you is reportable kenedy you think it had and will continue to have? what i'm

hoping... —— and will continue to have? what i'm hoping.. — and will continue to have? what i'm hoping... —— you worked on this report. what do you think it will continue to do? warming being 2 degrees rather than 1.5 degrees... that is a clear message that comes out of this report and which i hope will be communicated is that the next ten years will be absolutely critical in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. dr le quere, some aspects of this make a disaster is reading. how feasible is this figure actually? first thing to understand is to stop the planet from warming at any level, the omissions of carbon and greenhouse gases have to be brought down to zero. the faster we bring them down to zero, the lower the

warming and the lower the risks. with this report looks at its what is the maximum technically feasible effort that we could do, and that's one and a half degrees warming. they say it technically feasible, but the level of action that is required behind this is really unprecedented. whether we are able to implement those actions fast enough, this is really the key question asked by the report today. dr zickland, just talk us report today. dr zickland, just talk us through what you found we are going to be looking at. we saw very clearly that every implement and temperature has an effect. even if we are trying to, talking about half a degree less, we see some significant differences. for

example, in terms of people that are affected by... we would reduce the number of people worldwide... we think in terms of heat related mortality, people dying because of a heat wave or people of air pollution, that number would be kept lower. yields will decline less at 1.5 as opposed to 2 degrees. and these things are just a matter of time. people in the developing world, where people rely on su bsta nces world, where people rely on substances agriculture and need to adapt —— people rely on subsistence agriculture... ten cm lower

increase. sea ice in the arctic would disappear less frequently in a 1.5 world as opposed to a tubular world. several ecosystems would have a better chance of surviving. for example, corals. 2 degrees is very much a death sentence for corals but if we limit warming to 1.5, there is a chance that some in some locations might survive. dr le quere, we've got huge amount of work to do, haven't we? we are not on track for it to increase by 2 degrees but to three degrees. exactly. the report is very clear that even her half a degree of warming, the impact is substantially lower at 1.5 degrees compared to 2 degrees. at the commitments that are on the table i'iow commitments that are on the table now lead us to climate warming was

closer to three degrees. huge efforts are due in front bus. the report highlights areas where there has been success. that's in the deployment of renewable energy, wind energy and solar energy, that has been deployed worldwide and as a result of deploying these energies, the costs have come down much more rapidly than anticipated. we have examples of rapid change. not to replicate these examples across society, in other sectors, it is really the challenge ahead of us.“ i guess buffy just really the challenge ahead of us.“ i guess buffyjust to stay with us. just go to see what kind of reaction we're getting on social media. —— if i could just get both of you to stay with us. @aaronbastani tweeted... we will get some reaction to that in

a minute from our guests. @astrokatie shares a similar view. she says... @veganforlifenz tweeted, saying... and @biologistdan says... rather an upbeat finish to those.

let's talk a little bit about individuals. how much... political leaders have to drive this change but how much could individuals make themselves? yes, so staying under 1.5 requires big changes in all aspects of our society. it would affect the way we produce and consume energy, the way we move around, the way we design our buildings, both residential and public buildings, our diets. the way we eat. it really has great, profound changes on the way we live currently. in individuals can contribute by choosing their means of transportation. definitely driving less. if they drive, use a

gasoline free car. flying less. insulating their homes better. relying on renewable energy instead of oil and gas to cool or warm their homes. the other sort of level is diets, this report showing changes in diet would also be necessary, because especially the prevention, releases a lot of methane into the atmosphere which is a very powerful greenhouse gas. we really need all hands on deck here. what i'd like to emphasise, individuals can do a lot but without the political will from oui’ but without the political will from our leaders, we will not be able to get there. i'mjust our leaders, we will not be able to get there. i'm just going to bring some questions to you now from our viewers who have been contacting us with questions. we've got one from

someone with questions. we've got one from someone called carolyne. if i can ask dr le ouere this. she asked, what can we do about... there is agriculture admissions, all part of the problem. there is one sector that needs to be tackled. there is a change that can be brought about by changes in diet. for example, if we just eat more healthily, follow the nhs guidelines for diet can we would reduce our beach consumption, we would eat more plants, so we can use the land to grow trees and to grow, eventually, bioenergy crops as well. that isjust one sector. i think we should notjust that isjust one sector. i think we should not just begun that isjust one sector. i think we should notjust begun one sector. what is really clear about the report is that change has to be, our

actions has to take place, across a range, actions has to take place, across a range , across actions has to take place, across a range, across all of the sectors of the economy. and in particular now, there's one sector that's really sticking, and that is transport. the transport sector and we are now driving bigger cars, more miles and bigger cars that are less efficient in the last five years. and that's really sticking out and there's so much we could be doing in transport. we have technologies for electric cars. we know what to do. we could set more stringent targets for having more efficient vehicles, and there's a role there to play from government in setting these targets and incentives and there's a role there to play, also, for individuals are making the choice of how we transport ourselves around. john has contacted us saying, "am i correct in thinking..." looking on a per capita basis, in

missions per person, the west is still leading. every chinese i think only emits half of greenhouse gas emissions than the west does. it is correct, when you see our countries on boards, so this means also developing countries that are still in the midst of this energy transition will need to come onboard. but i don't think it is helpful to point fingers at others, especially considering per capita emissions are still lower in that region. it is correct that everybody would have to contribute. and back to you then, dr le quere. we got a

question from karl. he says... rivers... we're looking at the range of options in the uk. at the moment, it's not been supported because of its cost, simply. there is options in the title area. the options that are really cost effective in the uk at the moment is wind energy, offshore, but also onshore wind energy witchy are deploying at the moments —— which we are not deploying at the moment which could save a lot of help reduce a lot of out save a lot of help reduce a lot of our emissions. question from an anonymous social media user. you sign this or environmental... how

much pushback are you having from this report? is everyone on board?|j have this report? is everyone on board?” have not seen any pushback. i think the message here is quite clear. action is needed immediately, and it is needed in all sectors of the economy. which is what i think all environmental agencies have been supported for some time. i i'm not aware of any opposition to this report. and we do agree with that. dr le quere? that's right. the report has provided for the first time the amount of detail we need to see the differences different levels of climate change meeting. it's an incredible reports in the amount of information that it has brought together in such a short time was to

be to also realise that the report came about because of a you request from the united nations. it does not come from the world scientist but it is the united nations who have asked the scientist information about can we actually produce climate change tol.5 we actually produce climate change to 1.5 degrees of warming? and that comes from demands from low—lying islands who will be the first, at the forefront in terms of climate change impacts. it's not really a cry from scientists but it's really a clear answer from scientists to questions why governments. can we actually do this? and the answer is yes, technically, we can do this but you have to choose. and just a final question. another viewer has said to how much energy is used during the making of wind turbines and solar panels? some people slightly sceptical about the demand for

energy use and building these renewables. considering this type of emissions, this would be called lifecycle emissions, for all forms of energy, the amount of mission that are reduced... producing the wind turbine to be keeping it in place, commissioning its decommissioning it, these are called lifecycle emissions. it is very clear these omissions are a lot lower than emissions for fossil fuels. if we think for example of... when we fracture, there is nitrate... it has to be transported through pipelines. where there is leakage, in order to be transported, it has to be liquefied which requires huge amounts of energy, because the gas is cooled down to

temperatures where becomes liquid. and ina temperatures where becomes liquid. and in a has to be shuttled across oceans. these are huge emissions and if we look at the lifecycle emissions, renewable energy sources, wind, solar panels, are still clearly left energy intensive. dr kirsten zickland and corinne le quere, there you to listen to your expertise and hear your thoughts as well. thank you. —— very good to listen to. let's turn now to how individual countries are responding to the dire warnings about the consequences of climate change. our environment analyst roger harrabin reports on how few governments are taking the action that's needed to reduce global warming. in the united states, the picture is mixed. some states and corporations are massively expanding cheap power from the sun and wind, and the us government is a signatory to the climate assessment today. but president trump is delivering on his promise to increasejobs in coal, and his wish to pull out

of the paris climate deal might be triggering a ripple effect. the frontrunner in brazil's election now says he wants to leave that agreement, too. china, meanwhile, is world leader in renewables. the government's also told people to eat less meat, which helps reduce emissions. but satellites recently revealed that china's regions seem to be opening coal—fired power stations that should've been mothballed. and what's more, chinese state enterprises are promoting a coal boom across southeast asia. in india, prime minister modi expects investments in solar power of up to £60 billion in four years. he wants his nation to be lit entirely by led bulbs by next year. but he still wants to expand india's use of coal. in the eu, progressive nations want to increase ambition to cut emissions, but germany is said to be holding back under pressure from its car industry. the uk has cut emissions faster than any nation in the g20 —

mainly by banishing coal — and the government's working on a policy for zero emissions by 2050. but its own advisers say it's not doing enough to get people driving cleaner cars and insulating their homes. at this rate, they say the uk will also fail. so will governments collectively rise this latest challenge from the scientists? well, given the previous pace of progress, coupled with the cost and the inevitable opposition from some key industries, the likelihood of keeping below that 1.5 degrees threshold looks vanishingly small. earlier this evening, my colleague ben brown spoke to the energy minister, claire perry, whojoined us from luxembourg. she told us what the uk is doing to tackle climate change. ijust think it's important to know that we're one of the only countries in the world that actually have long—term climate commitments. we were the first country to pass the climate change act, and if we hit our 2032 budget —

and we're only about 5% off that now — we'll have cut our emissions by almost 60%. and i'm here, actually, at the eu ministers meeting talking about what we need to do in europe to raise our ambitions collectively. but i agree. the report that came out today was very stark and sobering, and actually a science lead piece of analysis that showed us the costs, if you like, of waiting to implement many of these changes. and i think we're one of the first major developed countries to actually ask our own climate change committee for advice on what it would look like to meet a zero emissions target by 2050, because, of course, we need to make the right choices, but we also need to do that at the right cost. ultimately, it's consumers or taxpayers or indeed shareholders that pay. and our track record is pretty good. we are leading the g7 in cutting our emissions

while growing our economy. and of course, next week is the first green great britain week, where we are going to talking about what we have achieved, but also challenging ourselves to do more. do more indeed, and for example, the green party are saying that you are underachieving, especially when it comes to transport. why notjust cut commuter rail fares, for example? why have you frozen fuel duty again? surely, if you increased fuel duty, that would help the environment. i think, as i said, the whole point of this is how you make those vital changes at a price that's affordable for those who are actually paying for it. and one of the things we should be really proud of in the uk is that transition to both manufacturing electric vehicles — one in five of electric vehicles sold in europe are sold on our shores — but also accelerating that transition. and the government continues to subsidise the buying of electric vehicles, and is investing hudnreds of millions in the electric

charging infrastructure. but there is so much more we need to do. and last year, when i published the clean grid strategy, we set out what we need to do right across the economy. we need to decarbonise transport faster, we need to take carbon out of... we need to do more on how we use land and how we farm, and that's why the agricultural white paper that's coming out now, which sets out how we want to pay public money for public good, is so important. so it's very easy, as always, for certain parties to try and pick off particular initiatives... maybe it's easy because you're not doing enough? for example, environmentalists would say, "why are you going ahead with fracking, if you are taking the environment and the planet seriously?" my challenge to you is, "what are going to turn on when you go home to cook your tea tonight?" you're going to turn on gas. 70% of us rely on gas for heating and 80% for cooking. and what we do in this

country is we don't let ideology set energy policy. we actually get on with delivering a balanced energy supply, but we have decarbonised our energy system faster than any other country in the developed world. we've got the biggest installed base of offshore wind, we're buying that now at subsidy free prices, we are investing in low—carbon... we are actually delivering in the low carbon energy sector more than almost any other country. the energy minister there. now it's time for a look at the weather with nick miller. warming up with plenty of sunshine by wednesday. still some rain out there. finally clearing tonight in western scotland. —— tomorrow night. some flooding out of this in some spots, the risk of some trouble disruption. elsewhere, some patchy rain. in and was looking mainly dry. some spots it single figures. into tomorrow, still this rain in western

scotland, persistent and heavy into the highlands here. likely to turn dry during the afternoon. england and wales, cloud and sunshine. lots of sunshine. southern england in east anglia and the midlands, lifting the temperature around 20 celsius. scotland, northern ireland, these are the temperatures. they go even higher with widespread sunshine by wednesday. at your latest forecast. hi, i'm ros atkins reporting from milan. all of this week on outside source, we're looking at populism in europe. our lead story this evening takes us back to the uk. an investigative website has named the second russian accused

by british authorities of being behind the nerve agent attack in salisbury as a dr mishkin, working for russian intelligence the far right candidate jair bolsonaro has won the first round of the presidential election. we'll report from rio and sao paolo. here in italy, deputy prime minister matteo salvini and marine le pen have met — are promising a revolution of common sense in europe.