this is bbc news with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. one of the most high—profile tiles in america has ended with conviction of former police officer derek chauvin on all charges over the death of george floyd. the guilty verdicts of second—degree murder, third—degree murder and manslaughter after ten hours of deliberations. outside the courthouse, hundreds as the verdict was read out and the depth of george floyd sparked worldwide protests against racism. the family of george floyd that it was a historic moment and his brother said he will continue to fight against victims of racial injustice. president biden said the effect verdict was a giant step forward for justice verdict was a giant step forward forjustice in america and said the country was plagued by systemic racism.

and now it's time for hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. maybe the most dramatic policy shift to follow the transfer of power from trump to biden has come in the field of climate change. team biden is promising hundreds of billions of dollars to speed up the decarbonisation of the us economy. the white house wants cooperation with china, too, to make good on the paris agreement on emissions cuts. my guest today, michael mann, is one of america's leading climate scientists. he says a new climate war is unfolding. if so, who are today's biggest climate enemies? michael mann in pennsylvania, welcome to hardtalk.

thanks. it's good to be with you. it's great to have you on the show. let us start with the covid pandemic and the global economic slow—down that came with it. there's some pretty dramatic figures which suggest that carbon emissions worldwide may have been cut by something like 6% or 7% last year, as a result of what happened. can we see that as of any long—term significance? well, i mean, that's the good news, right? we saw a decrease in carbon emissions of about 7%. and if we can keep that up year after year for the next ten years, that would put us on the path to keeping warming below catastrophic levels, below 1.5 degrees celsius. that's the good news. the bad news is that

that was largely a temporary response to the pandemic. social distancing, lockdown, decreased transportation — that led to a sizeable downturn in carbon emissions, but we're already seeing them come back. and so there's another lesson here, which is that individual, you know, behavioural change can impact our carbon emissions. but if we really want to see the sort of decrease that we need year after year, we need structural changes in the economy. we need to decarbonise the economy. changes in personal behaviour, individual actions alone, aren't going to do it right. right. well, we'll get to a detailed discussion of the actions that you think are necessary, the systemic action. but before we get

there, just... you are the "hockey stick curve" guy. you're the guy who told us, you know, 20 years ago that the rise in global temperatures connected to industrialised emissions was something that could be portrayed by that famous hockey stick. so tell me now, in your opinion, how much future temperature rise is baked in already, given where we are today? yeah, it's another "good news, bad news" sort of situation. the bad news is that we're where we are. the bad news is that the hockey stick, this curve we published two decades ago, has now been validated and it's been extended. the warming has continued beyond the tip of the blade, if you will, of where we were 20 years ago. and if we had acted then to bring down our carbon emissions, we wouldn't be in the predicament we are now. the good news here is that our best understanding of the underlying science

of carbon emissions and warming today tells us that efforts to decrease carbon emissions actually have an immediate and direct impact. we used to think that if we stopped burning carbon now, putting carbon pollution into the atmosphere now, the planet would continue to heat up for decades to come because of what we call the "thermal inertia". the oceans take a while to warm up in response to the greenhouse gases we've already put into the atmosphere. but there's another factor that only recently, over the last ten years, has really come into focus, which is the role that the oceans and plants on land, what we call the terrestrial biosphere, play in drawing down carbon. so if we stop burning carbon now, we stop putting carbon pollution into the atmosphere, the oceans and the biosphere continue to draw it down, those concentrations of carbon dioxide come down.

those two effects — the thermal inertia of the oceans, which would lead to further warming, and this carbon cycle response, if you like, the uptake of carbon — those two effects cancel out and you end up getting a flat line, which is to say if we stop burning carbon now, the temperature of the planet stabilises within a few years. what you seem to be saying with the science is that action makes a difference real quick, so let us get to what you pointed to earlier. that is the degree to which we are seeing systemic, concerted action. let's start where you are in the united states, withjoe biden. he's made all sorts of announcements tied to his $2 trillion economic package that a lot of that money is going to be channelled into green and environmental initiatives, particularly aimed at electric vehicles, at renewable energy. are you...? as a climate scientist, one of the most influential in america, are you happy and satisfied with what you've heard from joe biden so far? yeah, well, i'm satisfied

with what biden and the biden administration are doing through executive actions, right? they're using all of the lever arms of the federal government to try to affect climate policy. and what they've laid out comes about as close as you could come to what we might think of as a green new deal, an expansive effort to address the climate crisis. it goes about as far as you can go through executive actions alone, but executive actions only get us so much. we need massive subsidies for renewable energy. we need to block additional fossil fuel infrastructure. we need to put a price on carbon. there are all these other things that a president cannot do through executive actions. we need congress to act at the same time. and that's really the wild card

here, because we do have a democratically—controlled congress now, but very narrowly. and so as a result, it's going to be difficult to get expansive climate legislation past a congressional filibuster by republicans. ironically, it's sort of where, in my book, i envisioned we would be. and the book went to press back in august, but i figured we'd probably have a democratic president, we'd probably have a split congress, and so we're going to need some sort of compromise. and that's where progressives might have to give a little. we might have to put some things on the table that help bring some moderate republicans to the table, like carbon pricing. where does the us stand, for example, in relation to european countries? and i'm thinking of the united kingdom, where prime minister borisjohnson hasjust announced that he's going to speed up the decarbonisation of the uk economy. he had this aim, which was really toward 2050, of massive decarbonisation. now, he says by 2035, he wants a 78% decarbonisation as compared with levels of emissions in 1990. that's pretty darn dramatic.

it is. can we expect the biden administration to get anywhere close to that? well, that's what we're looking for. again, in the executive actions that they've instituted thus far, there is, for example, a commitment to bring carbon emissions from electricity generation down to zero within a matter of a decade and a half or so. now, again, we have a different system. it's different from the parliamentary system that the uk has, and so you do need this sort of bicameral cooperation between the executive and the legislative branch if you're going to put in place policy — policy that has some staying power, that can't be reversed by the next president if we get another donald trump—like president in the future. and so that's the challenge. but i expect that you're going to see a pretty bold proposal byjoe biden this week, along with china.

i think we can see some real concessions from china this week, at the summit that's taking place here in the us, and that'll hopefully lay the groundwork for what's to come later this year at the conference of the parties, cop 26, the international climate conference in glasgow... yeah... ..where we really do need to see that ratcheting up. i want to get back to the international arena and particularly talk about china, india and the developing world obligations, as you see it, to be part of this decarbonisation programme. i want to get to that, but i also want to address a mind—set. and you refer to your recent book — you've got it behind your shoulder there, i've got a copy, too,

which i've been reading — the new climate war: the fight — you call it — to take back our planet. i just wonder, given that you wrote this book, actually, a year or so ago or even more, whether it's a little bit outdated? you know, is it time to stop talking about climate war, about endless battles with your quote—unquote enemies? and goodness knows you've got plenty of enemies, particularly in the fossil fuel industry. is it time to get away from that sort of rhetoric? maybe it's time to talk more about meeting in the middle, about some sort of consensus. yeah, there is... in the book, as you know, i do talk about the importance of finding some bipartisan consensus here in the united states, for example, and the importance of bringing moderate republicans on board with mechanisms like carbon pricing that they can potentially support. so what i'm really talking about in the book, the new climate war, what this is is a recognition that the old war that we're used to talking about has essentially ended. this was an effort by fossil fuel companies and those promoting their agenda — that's conservative media outlets, politicians doing their bidding — this effort to discredit the scientific evidence for climate change and to attack

the science and the scientists. and that's not credible any more. they can't get away with that because people understand this is real, it's happening. but there are an array of tactics that the "forces of inaction", as i call them, continue to use to slow down progress. that's the "new climate war" — and it is very much under way. we can see all of the tactics that i describe. they're playing out right now... yeah... right, you... yeah, you don't sort of hold your fire. you talk about the various ds that your enemies in the fossil fuel industry still use. that is, things like distortion, deceit, delay. these are their tactics. let's not forget deflection, one of my favourites. deflection, let's not forget deflection — all sorts of different aspects that you say are deeply cynical on the part of fossil fuel. i would just point to you, it's not myjob to defend them, but i would just point to you that big corporates

like shell and bp have made some massive transition decisions already. if you look at shell, you know, they've ended drilling in the arctic, they've sold off billions of dollars�* worth of oil sand and other oil extraction assets. bp is calling for a 40% reduction in oil and gas production over the coming decade. these are real changes that these companies are making to become much more, sort of, power generators, often with renewables and much less extractive fossil fuel businesses. do you not recognise that? oh, no, absolutely. and we need to encourage that. and that really is the message of the book. you know, that there are some bad actors that are trying to stall this transition. and even british petroleum, which, you know, as you allude to, british petroleum, shell, some of these energy companies are starting to move in the right direction. and that's great, we need them on board. but it wasn't that long ago that british petroleum actually

gave us the first individual carbon footprint calculator. and that's because british petroleum and other fossil fuel companies wanted us so focused on our individual carbon footprint that we failed to notice theirs. just 100 polluters are responsible for 70% of emissions. and so, individual behavioural change alone isn't going to cut it. we need structural changes, we need carbon pricing, we need subsidies for renewables — things that fossil fuel companies aren't yet necessarily supporting... no, but hang on a minute, michael mann... they have to do it faster. on saturday let me interject and say, yeah, individual behaviour change on its own isn't going to cut it, but it is still vitally important, is it not? there will be millions of people around the world now wondering whether you care or not whether people stop driving these ridiculous big suv vehicles, whether the frequent flyers become a bit less frequent in their flying, whether all of the people who love eating beef every day can stop eating beef every day. are you saying that none of those behaviour changes matter?

no, and they won't think that if they've read my book. because one of the points that really do try to make is that, absolutely, we should do all those things in our everyday lives that minimise our environmental impact and our carbon footprint. in many cases, these are things that save us money, they make us feel better, make us healthier, set a good example for others. of course, we should do all those things. what we can't allow is for those individual actions to be framed as an alternative to the systemic changes that we need. we can't allow that to take the pressure off of polluters and politicians to enact policies that collectively move us all in the direction that we need to go. you sit in the united states, the home of capitalism, red in tooth and claw. do you believe that the systemic change that you've talked about throughout this interview can be achieved within a thoroughly capitalist system? because there are many people who've entered this debate, like naomi klein and others who say, frankly, capitalism will never deliver the change needed

because it is fundamentally exploitative? yeah, obviously, you know, pure free market capitalism with no regulation is a prescription for environmental disaster because that's been treated as an externality. it's not even part of the business decision—making, the health of the environment, if we don't have regulations. and so, clearly, an unregulated free market economy is incompatible with a sustainable existence on this planet. and that's why we need regulations, we need laws, and we need enforceable policies, and we need international cooperation to establish those laws and policies across the board. towards addressing the climate crisis within the framework of a market economy. as long as we have reasonable policies and, you know, we can have that conversation about whether a sustainable planet is ultimately consistent with an extractive resource—based economy. but we don't have time to remake the global economy.

we've got to bring carbon emissions down by a factor of two within the next decade. right, but your message to fellow americans is that they better get used to big government, much bigger government, cos it's only big government that'll solve this climate emergency. i would actually say the opposite. i would say we do need government, we do need governmental regulation. but you know what? if we fail to act on the climate crisis and we, sort of, start to become the dystopian world that hollywood has depicted, if we really allow climate change to go unmitigated, the disastrous impacts that it will have will force bigger government than you ever expected. the adaptation, the policies that would be necessary to support eight billion people on a planet with finite food, water and space,

and climate change exacerbating all of those tensions and competition, that's a prescription for the biggest government you could imagine. so, if you don't like big government, you better support action on climate. let's shift focus, then, from the united states, which we've talked about, to the wider picture — and in particular, the powers of the developing world, that is china and india, as well. now, both of them still have a massive stake in coal—fired energy. i believe there are more than 1,000 coal—fired power stations active in china, they're still building them by the dozen. what is your message to the chinese government and the indian government, too, which is heavily reliant on coal—fired power? do they have to join this debate and actually stop their commitment to coal—fired energy right now because of the nature of this climate emergency? yeah, and so, you know, we have to return to something like what we had, what was happening under

the obama administration before donald trump became president. and there, you did have this bilateral agreement between the us and china to make major progress in addressing the climate crisis — the us, bring its carbon emissions to a peak and bring then down, and that's happening, and china, to bring them to a peak, at the very least, within the next decade. obviously, china doesn't have the legacy we have of two centuries of access to cheap fossil fuels. they're still building their economy, they're still, you know, industrialising, in the industrialising phase of their economy. and that's why it's so important that china and india, which is in that same phase, not go down the fossil fuel road. but, with respect, they've gone a long way down that road already. and for them, there's

just a basic question of economicjustice, which remains unresolved. and i'm going to quote you the then—environment minister of india back in 2015 around the signing of the climate accord in paris, he said, "look, developing countries have a fundamental "right to develop. "they need carbon space," as he put it. "developed countries must now vacate that space. "we cannot suffer because of their sins." and i think that attitude still prevails. so, i'm wondering what you, as an influential climate scientist, can offer china, india and a host of other developing countries today? yeah, so let's take them one at a time. china — first of all, china was actually decommissioning coal—fired power plants when barack obama was still president. they were actually exceeding their commitments under the bilateral agreement under paris. then donald trump threatened to pull out of paris.

that took the pressure off china, and they started building coal—fired power plants again. so, there is a moral authority that the united states has to take here, because of this legacy of two centuries of burning of fossil fuels. if we don't have our own house in order, how can we tell the chinas and the indias of the world that they, too, have to decarbonise their economies? and so, i concede your point very much. but, look, china was going in the right direction when the united states was leading. then, when that leadership disappeared, we saw china, we saw australia and other countries start to ease off in their efforts. now that there's us leadership again, and there was a major agreementjust reached the other day between the us and china, i think we're back on that path. now, with respect to india, it's a slightly different situation. it's a very poor economy. the prospect of cheap energy obviously is attractive to them from the standpoint of growing their economy and increasing the living standard of their people. and that's why it's so important that the rest of the world provide them the resources that help them leapfrog past the fossil fuel stage. they don't need fossil fuels to build that inner energy infrastructure.

there are many influential voices in the environmental movement who say, to be honest, they believe it's too late to avoid terrible consequences for our planet, including mass extinction. i'm going to quote one to you, morgan phillips. now, she's the co—director of the glacier trust. a couple of years ago, she said this. "the political, cultural, technological change required "to save the climate is now impossible. "we are very likely now in the midst of "a mass extinction event. "it looks to me too late to avoid runaway warming." are you convinced that she's wrong? yeah, it's frustrating to hear those words, because there just isn't science to support that. this idea of runaway warming is based on a myth that's very popular among what i'll call — and i do call in the book — climate doomists, those who are convinced it's too late, the planet is undergoing runaway warming. it's typically premised on this

false notion that there's a massive amount of methane escaping into the atmosphere from the thawing of the permafrost. now, that's something that could happen if we continue to warm the planet, and we don't get our carbon emissions under control. but there's no evidence that that's happening right now. and to the extent that there is an increase in methane, it looks like it's coming from natural gas recovery, from fracking, from our extraction of fossil fuels. so, look, there's no evidence of that. there's no evidence for, you know, a massive extinction of human civilisation, and all of these other scenarios that typically underlie these doomist narratives. and so, first of all, they're wrong, but also, they're extremely unhelpful because they put forward a paralysing narrative of hopelessness, and that potentially leads people down the same path of inaction and disengagement as outright denial.

you, i have to say, in the course of this conversation, have struck me as much more optimistic than i expected you were going to be. are you even surprising yourself with the amount of hope you're feeling right now? well, it's a hopeful time, you know, it's earth week here in the united states, we have renewed leadership in the biden administration, you know, the countries of the world, the leaders of the world are coming together for this virtual summit to get us prepared to really make major commitments at the end of the year, at the next international climate summit. so, yes, there are reasons for cautious optimism. we're turning the corner, carbon emissions have plateaued — they started to come down last year, some of that was, of course, due to the pandemic, a fair amount of it. but they're actually coming down in part because we're moving towards renewable energy. but michael mann... you're the "hockey stick" guy, and we remember you for that. are you saying that that hockey stick can yet be broken, and then, that spike upwards can be reversed?

that's right. we can bend that curve downward. it's been spiking upward, but at least with the carbon emissions, we've flattened them. we now have to bring them down the other side. we have to bend that curve downward, and we have to do it rapidly. but it's still possible, it's still possible to do that in time to avert catastrophic planetary warming. we will end with that positive message. michael mann, i thank you very much indeed forjoining me on hardtalk. thank you. thank you, it was a pleasure. hello. the weather is not expected to change very much over the next few days. the kind of weather where strong spring sunshine can make it feel quite warm by day but, at night, clear skies can still allow it to get cold and frosty. but it will remain mostly dry through the rest of the week. now, on the earlier satellite image, you can see this stripe of cloud here. this is a weakening

weather front, not much rain left on it, but certainly more in the way of cloud as this sinks down across england and wales through the first part of wednesday. also some mist and murk, and low cloud lapping onto some southern coasts of england. so a bit of a grey start for parts of england and wales, even with the odd spot of rain, but it will brighten up with some sunny spells into the afternoon. scotland and northern ireland having a sunny but chilly start, and keeping hold of some sunshine through the day. just more in the way of cloud, and maybe the odd shower getting into shetland. quite a breezy day for many. and where you're exposed to that breeze along the east coast, temperatures may only get to 8—10 celsius. highest temperatures likely to be across the far southwest at 16—17 celsius, but here, there could just be the odd afternoon shower. any showers will fade through the evening, and through the night into the early hours of thursday, you can see long, clear spells across the country. that will allow it to get cold. where you see the blue colours on the map,

that's where we're expecting temperatures below freezing, but quite widely there'll be a touch of frost to take us into thursday morning. but for the end of the week, high pressure really will assert its influence right on top of the british isles. butjust around the southern flank of that high, we will have some quite brisk winds blowing across the channel islands, the south—west of england, also affecting some other southern and eastern coasts. but as you can see, largely cloud—free skies to start thursday. i think we'll see a bit of patchy cloud bubbling up through the day, but generally speaking, quite a lot of sunshine. highest temperatures in the west at 15,16, maybe 17 celsius, but for eastern and also southern coasts, actually, particularly where we have that breeze in the south, it's going to feel on the chilly side. still quite windy down towards the south and the southwest on friday. a bit of cloud across scotland maybe squeezing out the odd spot of rain, but elsewhere it's dry, long spells of sunshine, and a bit warmer by this stage — 17 maybe 18 degrees in some western areas. and, as we head into the weekend, it stays largely dry, more of that strong sunshine by day, but still the chance of some frosty nights.

they have to do it faster.

this is bbc news. i'm sally bundock with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world and special coverage of the trial of derek chauvin for the murder of george floyd. we the jury, in the above entitled matter, as to count one, unintentional second—degree murder while committing a felony, find the defendant guilty. derek chauvin faces up to a0 years injail — a jury decides the former police officer killed george floyd after he was filmed kneeling on his neck. shortly after the verdict, president biden gave his reaction. his legacy will not just be about his death but what we must do in his memory.