are confirmed to have died from coronavirus, with more than 1,700 new cases reported. this the world health organisation has called for concerted international action to stop the spread of coronavirus. the world indoor athletics championships, due to be held in the chinese city of nanjing, have been postponed for a year. senators in washington have begun two days of questionning in donald trump's impeachment trial, as the president and his allies have accused the former national security advisorjohn bolton of betrayal. and on our website, there's more on the moment the european parliament ratified britian‘s brexit agreement. some meps burst into a rendition of auld lang syne following the vote. it was the final hurdle before the uk leaves the eu on friday. that's all. stay with bbc world news. now on bbc news — it's

hardtalk with shaun ley. hello and welcome to hardtalk, i'm shaun ley. so much smoke has been generated by australia's bushfires, it's created a plume the size of the continental united states. nasa tracked it as it circumnavigated the globe. drought and record temperatures have created a giant tinderbox, yet australia's government insists it's too simplistic to blame climate change. patrick suckling spent three years as australia's ambassador for the environment. he believes the threat is all too real. but with politicians and voters still committed to exporting masses of coal, is hejust wasting his time?

patrick suckling in sydney, welcome to hardtalk. just as some countries have a rainy season, some have a hurricane season, australia has a bushfire season. but how different would you say this one has been? this one's been the worst we've had in new south wales certainly, so it's been unprecedented. it's been horrific, it's been tragic, it's been a summer of hell. i would say though, upfront, taking the opportunity with all your viewers around the world, to say how heartened we've all been by the extraordinary response and support we've had around the world for this tragic time. so thank you to you and your viewers and those around the world who have supported us at this time of trouble. the government says while the threat to life remains, it wants to focus on containing the fires and protecting lives. on that metric, how do you think it has done?

the fires have been unprecedented, they've been shocking, they've been all over australia, there's hundreds of them burning at the same time. normally, the fire season — we'll see fires go from north to south. this time the fires have been everywhere at once. so it's been an extraordinaryjob done at the commonwealth level, but by state governments as well, but most importantly by the fire services on the ground who've worked night and day, week in, week out, month in, month out, to do as best they can to contain these fires and protect lives. so we've lost over 5,500 buildings, we've lost 2,600 homes. tragically, we've lost 3a lives. but for those heroic, valiant and constant efforts, we would have lost a whole lot more. by and large, the response has been very impressive and we've seen that in the commendations and the support and the positive feedback that we've received around the world for how we as australia and how we have handled this extraordinary situation. there is a question of leadership, though, here, isn't there? some have argued that the government has got so caught up in this debate about climate change that it hasn't engaged with the people that would have given it the best possible advice.

let me put to you what greg mullins, who used to lead the fire and rescue service in new south wales — the state you are in at the moment — he said he's been trying to get a meeting with the government since april of last year, because "we knew," he says, "it was going to be a horror fire season." "it's very, very disappointing we won't listen to earlier and measures could have been taken months ago to make the firefighters more effective and to make the community safer. " that's the first job of government, isn't it — to make people safe? on that basis, hasn't it let them down? it is and the and the government takes its advice from all sorts of places and it was briefed about the unprecedented threat of big bushfires this season, and so it happened and it was as bad as we could have thought. the prime minister has said in retrospect he thinks he could have done some things better, perhaps listening to them might have been one of them. but certainly there's been a significant and dramatic

and sustained effort, including through our defence forces to deal with this unprecedented bushfire season. a comparison is been drawn — has been drawn by the australian ethics centre with how government prepare for the risk, the potential of a terrorist act. they said at the start of this year, they wouldn't wait until there was unanimity in the advice they received, they would accept the consensus view. and we know now that we have seen a consensus view developing in science about climate change — the consensus view of those presenting the intelligence and they take preventative action. so why, the centre asks of our political leaders, ignored the warnings of fire chiefs, defence analysts, and climate analysts and played russian roulette with our future? i think there was a high degree of preparedness, as there always is for australian bushfire seasons. don't forget we've had bushfires decade in, decade out for the whole of human settlement in australia, and as you know, that goes back 60,000 years with our indigenous

people, so there's a high degree of knowledge, awareness and preparation that goes bushfire seasons. i think the thing that happened with this season, it was unprecedented, there was an extended drought so things were very dry. there were all sorts of exacerbating factors like the indian ocean el nino, the hot winds coming in from the stratosphere from antarctica and of course, the underlying cause of climate change making things hotter and drier, which does mean australia will have worse fires as we go forward unless we address the challenge of climate change. so i think a lot of that was understood. but the magnitude of this fire when it came, was such that even despite significant preparations, including a lot of backburning in all sorts of different areas and control of vegetation, they were, as you saw, unmanageable in many parts of australia. understood but perhaps not acted upon.

the then—australian government back in 2008 commissioned the garnaut climate change report in which professor garnaut wrote "projections suggest that fire seasons will start earlier and end slightly later," as this one has had, "and generally be more intense." governments of all political colours were warned that the scale of this problem was going to increase. and arguably, for a lot of australians, they don't seem to have prepared adequately for that. you're right, those predictions have been around well since the ‘60s and ‘70s. the garnaut report did make that observation, the ipcc of the un makes those sorts of observations as well, so that has fed into the thinking around preparedness and actions around bushfire season for australia, so it's not to say australia hasn't done anything. as i say, but for the extraordinary efforts of an extraordinary number of people, volunteers, firefighters, australian defence personnel, communities, the devastation would have been much, much worse. you're a former diplomat and you've been quite diplomatic about what you said so far, which is perfectly understandable, but the man that appointed you to yourjob as australian ambassador

for the environment, malcolm turnbull, who was mr morrison's predecessor as prime minister, has been rather more blunt. he says "rather than doing what a leader should do, scott morrison downplayed the the threat, at times discounted the influence of of climate change, which is just nonsense from a scientific point of view," he says, so that has misled people. do you share that criticism? i think you've heard the prime minister himself say, as i said earlier, that in retrospect he could have done things a bit differently... sure, but i want to know what you think. ..and a little bit better. and i think in that context, climate change and recognising climate change and accepting and messaging on climate change to the communities about the risks, and australia's contribution to the climate change effort around the world is an important factor. but, as you know, that's a longer—term factor. i mean, at the moment we have these fires upon us irrespective of what else was happening in relation to mitigation around the world.

and in that context, although slow out of the blocks by his own admission, there was an extraordinary effort by all levels of government and all levels of community to deal with the fires. let me pick up on that phrase ‘slow out of the blocks‘, because this is a mounting criticism of australia's attitude to the potential threat of climate change and it comes in various forms. 0n the one hand, we'll perhaps talk a bit about this in due course, the politics of australia, the dependence on minerals and the fact the voters just in this last election went for a government that said climate change is not actually the key thing we have to worry about, we have to balance the needs of the economy against the environment and rejected a party, labor, that seems to be edging towards more restrictions. and the targets that australian government have set, which is that by 2030 australia should decrease its emissions by 26% compared to 2005, a target most observers, including the united nations, now think won't be met. putting that altogether, isn't australia not so much leading as reluctantly following and trying

to restrain other countries from doing more? australia is not leading on climate, that's fair to say, but australia is playing its part. that target you've just mentioned, the 26%—28% target by 2030, that represents a halving of emissions per person in australia, or two—thirds reduction per year unit of gdp, that's not insignificant. yes, but the un says it's not going to be met. that's the un's view. the abatement coming out of the australian economy year—on—year suggests we will meet that target. well, the figures i've seen, and you will correct me if i'm wrong about this, is they've kept on increasing. i think in the year to march 2019 a 0.6%jump on the previous year. the projections do show that emissions are continuing to increase, although in the last

projections there was a slight fall in them, but given the policy measures that are in place in the australian economy and given the extraordinary uptake of renewables in australia, per capita, we are the highest in the world with one in five households having solar energy, there're all sorts of things beginning to impact on emissions growth and i think you will see a reduction. and as the prime minister, one of the more noticeable, newsworthy things coming out of these fires on a climate change perspective, is the prime minister saying he prepared to look at doing more to look at different policies and new policies, mitigation, adaptation or resilience and that's a very significant comment from him. the climate change performance index, published, as you know, by the international think tank germanwatch, in which the latest came out in december describes — apart from ranking australia as 56 and under the bottom five performers in terms of how it meet its climate emissions reduction target and its overall mitigation strategy, it says, "experts note the new government is an increasingly regressive force in negotiations."

you were involved in some of those negotiations during your time as the ambassador. did you find yourself restrained by the domestic politics, by frankly the internal divisions in this government, which were reflected in previous governments, too? i wasn't restrained as ambassador for the environment for australia in terms of prosecuting our interests internationally. you know, when we signed up to the paris agreement in 2015, the target that we selected was comparable with canada, new zealand, japan, the united states. we were in good company. so the comment that i got when i was ambassador was australia's back, including our climate finance commitments to developing countries, and not insignificant, including an enormous amount going to the pacific region. though you were actually told the government has made its final payment to the fund that helps the global action fund, which was developed

by the united nations. according to climate change news, the gcf has co—financing capabilities and regional coverage australia couldn't possibly provide on its own, and yet the australian government has decided it isn't paying any more into that fund. is that, in terms of international leadership, the right signal for the government to be sending? just on that fund, we co—chaired it for the first three years and it was a nightmare. it's a very difficult fund, it was very political and quite incompetent fund. and so the prime minister's view was he'd prefer to spend australia's money directly with a greater impact on the ground in areas that we could control. so at the same time as he announced australia wouldn't replenish that fund, he announced a $2 billion infrastructure fund for the pacific, all of which investments would be put through a climate prism, and subsequently announced another $500 million, including an additional $120 million to leverage $800 million worth of private—sector money, which is exactly the sort of financing you want to see for climate change. so on that fund in particular,

don't take the criticism. so, sorry to interrupt you, just to clarify you there. in some circumstances to do with climate change, it is better to act alone? it's better to do things in a whole myriad of ways. we contribute to all sorts of multilateral funds but we also do things bilaterally, but in this case and that particular fund at that particular time, it has since had some government improvements, which we are hearing makes the fund a lot more effective, but at the time the decision was made the fund was not working particularly well and the minister's view was it would be better to spend australian money directly in areas of most need that we could control. you yourself in an article published just for christmas said many developing countries are in parts of the world that would be more affected by climate change because they don't have the resources, we need to step in and help them, which is clearly what you think the government is doing with its investment in the pacific region. i just wonder why the other pacific nations, some of them are most directly affected, don't see it that way.

can i quote you enele sopoaga, the former prime minister of tuvalu, and forgive me if i have mispronounced his name, who chaired last year's pacific islands forum. he said he was stunned by the "un—pacific tenor and manner" of scott morrison, the australian prime minister, who was, in his words, trying to water down the wording of the communique, their agreement on acting on climate change. they wanted really strong action and the australian prime minister was sitting there saying, "no, no, i'm not going to sign that." there's always different perspectives. what australia was doing in that context was taking out some things from that communique which are unrealistic and untenable. basically no reference to coal or ending reliance on that kind of thing, which is responsible for many of these issues, as you would expect, wouldn't you?

well, saying there should be no new coal—fired power stations by 2020, which is now, that is patently unrealistic. so, if you want to have credibility internationally, it's good to put out a statement that has credibility. that was our fundamental point. do you think australia has credibility internationally? well, that communique the pm signed up to is the most ambitious any australian government has ever signed. it is not saying much, is it? australia's political record, whether under the labor governments, where they couldn't agree, and in the end put their policy on ice because they were stuck squabbling over it, or indeed this coalition, the liberal—national coalition, which has apparently the same problem. is that because of the voters or because of the politicians? i think what you see on climate change in australia's similar to what you see in many parts of the world, which is we are on a journey. so australia has taken action, it is taking action, it does need to do more. i am not contesting that. as you say, have written... many people in australia when they are polled, the vast majority of australians say they want to see stronger action on climate change, and if they have to pay for it, they don't mind doing that either. so there's a growing consensus in australia,

which i think is shrinking down the view that the climate denialists that are among us, as they are in most societies, or every society. but year on year, decade on decade, australia's action on climate change has been increasing, and i am absolutely confident it will continue to increase. and as i say, i think one of the big news stories out of these tragic fires is the pm is being very clear that climate change is a factor, and being very clear that he is prepared to have a look at a whole range of different policies and solutions in relation to climate change. so that's progress, that's positive. let's talk about, then, the economic issue there. at the heart of it, australia's economy is built on national resources. sure, its environment is a magnet for tourists, but coal has been the second—largest export certainly in recent years. the industry provides around 50,000 jobs directly. now there is going to be a new big mine open, the carmichael mine, run by the indian company adani, that has got the go—ahead. in that kind of context, with a project that you yourself when you were in india as australia's high commissioner said it will drive economic growth

and create more than 6,000 jobs in australia, king coal is going to remain the master, really, in all of this, and however much they may be pressure from other countries, and even some in australia, to reduce carbon emissions, the economic case is going to mitigate that. i think australia has signed up, as the whole world has, to the paris agreement, and the paris agreement is very clearly on a transition path to net—zero emissions by the second half of this century, a much greater climate—resilient world, and also to shifting finance flows to make sure that all of that happens. that's what australia's signed up to and ratified. and many countries around the world have. but by the same token... building a huge new mine and opening further mines to tap these reserves that have so far not been exploited, it's not going to make it any easier to make progress towards that target.

if you're already falling short on the target, as your critics allege, and others are saying why is australia the only country, by the way, that's kind of engaging in a bit of an accountancy fiddle, as they see it, to take the credits for meeting its kyoto targets and set them against this new target for the future. it's kind of not playing the rules of the game in the same way as everybody else. it's trying to claim it's doing stuff, but what it's doing is inadequate, and meanwhile it is happily generating more and more carbon emissions. well, i was going to say by the same token, you cannot, it's unrealistic, as per the communique i was just talking about in the pacific, to say that fossil fuels will be wished away or swept under the carpet tomorrow. we had a very interesting briefing... but what about next year, next decade, 50 years, 100 years? if i could just... it doesn't sound like that's the kind of direction in which australia is going. please. but if i could just finish this point, the head of the international energy agency briefed us and the ministry last year, saying effectively 30 years ago, 80% of the world's energy mix was fossil fuels. 30 years of climate action, 80% still fossil fuels. we need to clean that up. if we don't clean up fossil fuels, then we're in crisis.

yes, we have to pull every lever we possibly can, that's renewables, that's nuclear for countries that have it, but fossil fuels will remain for some decades to come an integral part of the energy mix. we're all transitioning away from that or we're looking for new technologies, better technologies to clean it up, but it's not going to happen overnight. so you can't wish away, from an australian perspective, an entire coal industry overnight, when 80% of the global energy mix is still using fossil fuels. that's a, unrealistic, and b, hypocritical to point the finger at australia on something like that, when the rest of the world, by and large, is still consuming vast amounts of fossil fuel. so australia, like everyone else, has said, "we will transition out, we will look for better technologies, we will invest in cleaner technologies." one of the big success stories of some of the policies in australia has been the financing mechanism that has driven $25 billion of clean energy into the australian economy, we're closing down our own coal mines. closing down but building more... so could australia do more? yes, of course we could. the prime minister said he's

prepared to have a look at it. from my perspective, i think australia could do more. i have said that in some of the articles that i've recently written. how much more... ok, let's be specific, how much more do you think it should be doing? because laarence tubiana, the former french environment minister, architect of the paris accord, told the financial times at the end of last year that basically australia is cheating, and essentially, by doing the approach, by taking the approach it is, by not really fulfilling its ambitious target and not going for a very ambitious one, that it is actually going to undermine the whole system. that in that sense australia is not a great exemplar and its international reputation is being damaged by that. well, i'm not going to defend the government on the intended use of carryover, because what you are saying, i think in that context, is not in the spirit of the paris agreement, which was not to import lower levels of ambition but to step up and have higher levels of ambition in the paris agreement. but what i would say is again you have seen the prime minister and the government shift on this in recent weeks, where the prime minister has said the government intends to use carryover, to the extent necessary, and we won't know as australia whether we need to use that carryover until 2032 when we drew up our numbers. that's 12 years away.

i am absolutely confident that more policies will come through in the australian context, more abatement will come out of the australian economy, as it has been 50 million tonnes every year for the last couple of decades, and that carryover will not have to be used. the pm is already signalling that. so in a sense i agree with what laurence has said, and i have worked very closely with her, i can understand her disappointment. but the prime minister, i think, from recent comments, is being more sensitive to that point. given, finally and briefly if you can, that we are at a stage of transition, as you see it, where there is still new exploitation of carbon going on, but where there is now going to be hopefully an enforceable rulebook, which all countries, perhaps excluding the united states for now, play a part in trying to mitigate the effects of climate change, despite that, should australians now expect that next year's fire season will be more of the same? we're not going to change the global temperatures rise overnight or in the next decade, or even a few decades. it's baked in. so in that sense we have got to deal with climate change. and that's the tragic thing of what we are seeing around the world. it's notjust australia, it's not just fires, it's droughts, it's flood, it's all sorts of climate impacts, it's health impacts on different communities around the world.

so that's why there is such an urgency around climate action, that this is not something that can be wished away with, done away with one single shot, one bullet, one year, one decade. this is a transformation of the way we think about the world and the way we do business in the world, and the way we interact with one another around the world, and it's a decade—long agenda. what i am hopeful, what i see in australia, is the climate wars i think are lessening. i think the more extreme voices are being more muted. they are becoming shriller but they are becoming more insignificant.

my sense is that continues. people understand climate change is real. they feel it, and they know that, and they want things to be done. and i think the governments around the world are recognising that, and certainly the australian government has and will. yes, i do think the australian government could be doing more on climate change, but they are signalling they will have another look, and i think that's very positive. patrick suckling, australia's former ambassador for the environment, thank you for being with us on hardtalk. thanks.

hello there, we started off this week with a wintry flavour, cold for all of us. but wednesday brought a day of contrast. it was a glorious afternoon across much of england and wales with some sunshine coming through, as you can see in bedford, and a little milder with it. different story further north as we saw some heavy, persistent rain. some areas of scotland seeing over a couple of inches in a 24—hour period. now that weather front continues to drift its way steadily north. we've got a weaker area of low pressure pushing its way in from the south—west. but one unifying factor as we move into thursday and friday is a south—westerly flow will drive mild air right across the country so wednesday morning we saw temperatures hovering around the freezing mark. but thursday morning, and it really looks as though it will be a different story. we're going to start of mild, 7—8

degrees widely across the country. so, yes, it's a mild start, but rather cloudy, grey, drug one, unfortunately. there will be some rain, some heavier visiting, moving through western scotland to the north. and then behind it with quite a lot of cloud, thick enough for the odd spot or two drizzle, like patchy rain, misty, murky weather conditions, may be dense fog lingering in the far south—west. lighter winds to the south, but always strongest the further north and west without rain. but look at this. this temperatures widely double digits. 10—14 degrees our afternoon highs. as we move out of thursday into friday, unfortunately, yet again, there's another frontal system that is going to push in from the west and that's going to bring more wet weather with it. now, the heaviest of the rain is likely to be through western areas for a time on wednesday. and as it pushes its way steadily eastwards it will weaken, fragment to showers into the afternoon. but we're likely to see more persistent rain just clinging

onto the north—west of the great land. however, the wind direction is still a south—westerly, still mild for all, 8—111 the high. now, as we move out of friday for the start of the weekend, unfortunately it looks as they we're stuck in repeat. low pressure never too far away, but weather fronts crossing the uk, they either way, a brief respite before the next weather front which is in. so it does look likely that it is going to stay pretty unsettled. so this is our city forecast for both saturday and sunday. it's going to be a case showers or longer spells of rain, but it's still only mild side for this time of year, with temperatures widely into double figures. take care.

i'm rico hizon in singapore. the headlines: blockades and barriers. china's villages try to keep out strangers and coronavirus. president trump accuses his former national security advisor of betrayal and the white house warns him not to publish his book. i'm kasia madera in london. also in the programme: # for auld lang syne, my dear # for auld lang syne...#. fraternal singing from some, flag—waving from others. brexit clears its final legal hurdle in the european parliament. and extreme science. the unique human challenge of measuring climate change