i'm ben bland with bbc world news. our top story: donald trump says hate has no place in the united states — after two mass shootings in the space of a day. a man is arrested after killing 20 in el paso, texas — opening fire on shoppers in a busy store in a mainly hispanic area. officials have called it ‘a case of domestic terrorism'. 13 hours later, a man was shot dead by police, after killing 9 people — including his sister — in a bar in dayton, ohio. and in hong kong, a huge strike is set to get under way. after another weekend of clashes, the government there has warned pro—democracy protesters they are putting the city on the verge of a very dangerous situation that's all. stay with bbc world news.

now on bbc news, it's hardtalk. shaun ley interviews environmentalist professor tim flannery. . welcome to heart talk, i am shaun ley. time is running out. if we don't act fast and radically it will become too late to limit the effects of global warming. it's a sort of thing you hear from of global warming. it's a sort of thing you hearfrom campaigners trying to wake up the world. tim flannery isn't 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 orjust so much hot air?

tim flannery, welcome to hardtalk. we've seen this year, certainly in europe, some the most extraordinary temperatures and weather events with experienced in some parts of western europe, a second in only a matter of a month. belgium and the netherlands and germany recording the highest ever temperatures. globally, the un world meteorological organisation says the last four years have been the hottest known to man but 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 is big problems in our political system. we've seen a rise of populists who are very policy light and very nationalist heavy. and for some reason, they are

winning elections. i personally don't 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 would seen for decades. been writing about this subject for i6 been writing about this subject for 16 years. is you attitude changed? yes, it has. i watch the science and i see it getting worse and worse and predictions coming true and time running out so for me, every year it just gets tougher. when you say time sta rts just gets tougher. when you say time starts to run out, what do you mean, can you quantify? 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 outcomejust about the last time we could have achieved a good outcome just by cutting emissions. today, we know we have to do to very difficult things at once if we 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 don't know where we go for solutions. you've said that you've kind of slightly given up trying to persuade every climate sceptic you've needed to change their mindsa sceptic you've needed to change their minds a new focus on in particular working with business to try and get them to create the changes. one of the reasons you helped found the copenhagen climate council. some are concerned, though, especially those who regard themselves as environmentalists is that the growth in our economies is one of the problems standing on the way of tackling climate change. in a sense, business is geared up for something different and it's not complimentary with the ambition you wa nt to complimentary with the ambition you want to achieve in mitigating the effect of global warming. want to achieve in mitigating the effect of global warminglj want to achieve in mitigating the effect of global warming. i don't believe that's true. i measure success believe that's true. i measure success by the gigaton. last year, oui’ success by the gigaton. last year, our emissions went up by 1.7%. we added 3.5 ppm of co2 to the atmosphere, the highest on record

over the last 12 months and that is failure for me. if the economy does 01’ failure for me. if the economy does or doesn't grow, i'm not looking at that, i'm looking at a different set of diggers. you say you are looking ata of diggers. you say you are looking at a different set but doesn't want inform the other? advisors to the trump administration on energy and climate said in katowice in poland, we strongly believe no country should have to sacrifice their economic prosperity or energy security in pursuit of environmental sustainability. that is the direct clash between nationalism, the national self—interest, making america great again, it could be heavyin america great again, it could be heavy in a —— any other country in the wider interests of the global economy and the global environment. 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 sphere and we need to transform every industrial process that we are in charge of. that will mean growth. you see yourself it's wrong but you

are writing on the copenhagen climate council website when it was set up, every revolution, from oil to renewables, profits have increased. that's the way the world is. yes and that's 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. 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. between 1980 and 2000 according to the intergovernmental science policy plus hormone biodiversity and ecosystem services back in may this year which published its report under the it is of the un, 100 million hectares of tropical forest we re million hectares of tropical forest were lost mainly in cattle ranch in south american, palm oil plantations

in southeast asia contributed to the decline. international trade has increased since 1970 to feed, clothe and give energy to this burgeoning row world, forests have been cleared especially in tropical asia. isn't that tension part of the problem? you may have this desirable ambition for a global economy but we start with the one we've got and we are trying to deal with the effects of climate change. the reality is in this world we will need to use the existing economy to build a new one. every time you build a wind turbine manufacturer solar panel, you're going to use dirty energy. the cost of the transition will be a growth in this dirty old economy. in terms of food, a new tour particularly about cattle grazing in the destruction of rainforests, that is truly the old economy and the reason thatis truly the old economy and the reason that is growing as it is is because we are not exacting a carbon price on undesirable practices. we need to make those changes. the carbon market hasn't worked. no, it hasn't

worked. it must work in future. that gas that is sitting over our heads 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 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? to do at this stage or are we still developing the technology7m to do at this stage or are we still developing the technology? is a great question. no—one can say what technologies will work at the guitar and scale. we have small industries, groups like carbon engineering make biofuels out of atmospheric co2. maybe some forestry, maybe, what i am keen on his seaweed farming. we consider solutions in embryo there but it will be sometime before we know which of those are going to be effective, cost—effective and effective, cost—effective and effective in drawing down. it's

difficult to appreciate the point you're making about this technology. you went through this when you are for the argument for geothermal power as a way of 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 the investment was lost. that's right and if i could say there, the thing that i was wrong about and a lot of the world didn't see was the power of the manufacturing process to drive power of the manufacturing process to d rive costs power of the manufacturing process to drive costs out of reduction and so to drive costs out of reduction and so solar and wind, which are both the new fracturing based new energy solutions are really killed everything else including geothermal so everything else including geothermal so my little superannuation nest egg was u nfortu nately lost so my little superannuation nest egg was unfortunately lost through that. it hasn't 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. no-one can see the future. we know what the outcome is that we can't see the pathway. this is part of the problem, isn't it? we

have had it expressed was certain extent sceptically have had it expressed was certain extent sce ptically by have had it expressed was certain extent sceptically by one british government minister who said people in this country have given up on experts, they don't trust them. it's a global problem and impart its the dire warnings never quite comes to pass as they are supposed to pass an inner that's good news but it somewhat discredits the people have issued those warnings. somewhat discredits the people have issued those warningslj 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, we're looking at having the hottest winter in south—eastern australia on record. here in europe, you've 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 yea rs, start gathering pace in the next few years, otherwise we will miss the chance. why isn't 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, very respected survey, the lowry poll found 60% of people say global warming is a serious and pressing oblong, we should take steps now but when it came to the federal election in 2019, the voters comprehensively rejected the opposition's labor party proposal which was to tackle it by reducing emissions by 45 cents by 2030. it lost badly. it's primary vote was down at a time when it was expected to win. the winning government's 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 don't understand and perhaps you can help us because you run the country's 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 ringing 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 haven't 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 haven't had that sense of social responsibility just brought people along. social responsibility is one thing but it's 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. it's the cost would be about $181 million us, 167,000jobs. it's not the cost would be about $181 million us, 167,000 jobs. it's 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. somebody else, not mine to sacrifice my job, properly. i've somebody else, not mine to sacrifice myjob, properly. i've seen somebody else, not mine to sacrifice my job, properly. i've seen this firsthand, i've met coalminers have said to me, "i'm working in a coal mine, igot said to me, "i'm working in a coal mine, i got two children, am i doing the right thing?". of course, i say the right thing?". of course, i say the first responsibility is to put it on the table for your family and that's why we as a society need to move forward together with this and create new industries and it's 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. hitting government support to do it is really tough and i don't understand that. isn't part of the problem is it doesn't 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 to the rest of the world can do it and that is not going to change. argument isjust 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 a 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 it's large, yes but that doesn't mean australia should do nothing. where the 15th largest emitter capita, we are a

largest emitter capita, we are a large emitter if you look at it in that way and we need to do what's right. i mentioned gutterres at the start of this interview. i want to hear about how we're going to stop increasing emissions 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. may said we will hit net zero emissions by 2050. it is easy to say these things, they are predictions, and it is hard to deliver on them. it is, and the delivery will be down to industry. you recently saw andrew mckenzie from bhp say this is a crisis and we need emergency action. i have lived through 20 years of climate action where we have not moved the dial a centimetre. we are 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 i am

watching you all, you are all scared to move first because you don't want to move first because you don't 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 a member of china's 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 set a study 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 statement. do you believe them? look, from china i am encouraged by

them. the big issue for china, as i understand that the moment, is the growth in vehicle sector. you know, it is the number of new cars coming online is huge. so they seem to be making very good progress with their electric vehicle manufacturing, and iam electric vehicle manufacturing, and i am hopeful that they can do that by 2025. | 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, stable 02 degrees. -- stay below two degrees. there are a lot of insta nces two degrees. there are a lot of instances where we see the propaganda value of promising things and often it is 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 we actually know whether we are making the progress we think we are. even our poor old antonio guterres is going to know if he gets 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 we are going in the wrong direction in a very bad way. the moment we are going in the wrong direction in a very bad waylj wa nted direction in a very bad waylj wanted to ask you about the book that you published a few months ago, 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 313 pages. you describe europe not so much as a continent but as an appendixjutting so much as a continent but as an appendix jutting out into the atla ntic 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 europe's experience and its experience of climate change, dramatic payment change 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 a lwa ys have met over the millennia. it has always been invigorated by things from outside coming in. it's climate has changed dramatically over time, but what we see in the current era is that we are seeing a change of such a large scale it is hard to find an analogy to it in the

previous fossil record, and of such speed. it is happening 30 times faster than the melting of the ice at the end of the last ice age. so in any agenda or anything that is moving big and fast, it goes to the top of the agenda. so climate change is big and it is 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 and the individual species that make up europe today, i really at stake. because many of the critics of the emergency that some say we are now experiencing on climate change say the globe has experienced two or three degrees 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 can't adapt once again. what you are saying is that process, it is as if someone saying is that process, it is as if someone has speeded up time this time around. it'sjust very big and very fast moving. and you and i know, if we are crossing a road and you are getting a toy, a boy and a bicycle coming towards you slowly, it is no big deal. we can get around it. if you've got a huge semi coming towards you at 100 mph, you know you better get out of the way. and that's what the current climate processes . that's what the current climate processes. 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 say threatening your children, you mean because they are sending in a way of progress? yes, they are standing on the way progress. they are threatening their own children as well. yes. and you talk to people all the time, you are known as one of australia's best communicators, certainly one of its most experienced communicators obtaining complex scientific ideas into understandable for the layman, i speak as a layman, what is it that they are not seeing?” speak as a layman, what is it that they are not seeing? i don't 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 can't comprehend. so i dojust ask them, just get out of the way, let me get on with giving my children a

better future. you know, me get on with giving my children a betterfuture. you know, we can do without your obstruction. in your book you're right that even if the aspirations of the paris agreement on climate change are realised, europe's 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 europe's 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 environment, it is the change in the species population as well. that's right, you've got to think of europe as an appendix of africa, really, in some ways, and of asia. things come into europe as climate change. 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, 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? ivan and adventurer. -- i'm continent. why? ivan and adventurer. —— i'm an adventurer. i think this isa —— i'm 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. you know, because the european street house elephant, basically it is a hybrid, but its ancestral species still exist in west africa, the west african forest elephant. africa's 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. we're trying to recapture something that has already been lost? i was slightly deluding ourselves when we think somehow we can really wild the environment and that will solve our problems?” can really wild the environment and that will solve our problems? i have just been down and see what charlie barrell 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 needed. and in a way that is... we need the new paradigms as it is expressed in that way to succeed. 66 million years ago, around the time europe's 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 earth's systems, really, are fundamentally regulated by

bacteria and microorganisms, so it's 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 i've got no doubt the earth's system will survive, but i really worry for our civilisation andi 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 don't ta ke species could vanish if we don't take this more seriously, much sooner. and presumably there comes a point where we won't be able to prevent that. that's right. how close is that? i think it's between ten and 20 years from now. if we haven't significantly greened our grid and brought in electric vehicles, and if we haven't at least taken the first steps towards large—scale carbon pulldown, i think at that point i don't know what i will say to my children. at that

point, as a scientist, i'm out of options. the planet survives. to humans, in those circumstances?” 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 for maintaining iti resource requirements for maintaining it ijust enormous, and you need stability to deliver those resources . you need stability to deliver those resources. tim flannery, thank you very much for being with us on hardtalk. it's 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 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, 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 we're 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 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, northern england and scotland, that's where we're 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 and northern england. some showers further south, but toward 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. i'm not promising that it will be completely dry, but there'll be fewer showers, more sunshine around. but it doesn't 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 newsday on the bbc. i'm sharanjit leyl in singapore. our top stories: two mass shootings in america within hours. a man is arrested after killing 20 in el paso, texas — it's being treated as an act of domestic terrorism. 13 hours later, a man is shot dead by police after killing 9 people — including his sister — in a bar in dayton, ohio. these are two incredible places. we love the people. hate has no place in our country.

i'm ben bland in london — also in the programme: clashes continue in hong kong —