jeffrey's been both a foreign correspondent and a news anchor for canadian and us broadcasters. first of all, lovely to have the three of you in the studio. i keep saying it every week and will keep saying it, it makes such a difference. "socialism", according to a british politician of the last century, "is the language of priorities". perhaps it's more accurate to say that politics in a democracy is about choosing between priorities. what happens, though, when those priorities conflict? no—one accused of war crimes in ukraine today will face justice any time soon, so ukraine's allies are punishing russia with further sanctions. some want to stop buying russian gas altogether. but that could mean shortages, bills higher than they are already, rationing. substitution means more carbon extraction, just as the united nations is warning that the world is way off the greening of energy needed to prevent the climate perhaps becoming, for us, intolerable. the response of borisjohnson�*s government has been an energy security strategy. justin, sustainability, affordability, security of supply — what does

this strategy tell us about where boris johnson's government's priorities lie? it is claiming it addresses all of that. the consensus has been that it has not done any of them particularly well. so, we are talking about new nuclear power, we are already rolling out offshore wind very rapidly, a more rapid rollout of offshore wind, tiny changes to onshore wind, maybe more solar and then, opening up new licensing for north sea gas and oil. what there wasn't is a big effort to tackle and reduce demand, maybe insulating homes. maybe get people to switch to heat pumps and that kind of stuff. greens were very upset about that. it takes a long time to build nuclear power, it takes four years to build wind turbines in the north sea. it would be much quicker to put onshore wind turbines, and that would address energy security more quickly and would also, arguably,

reduce bills more quickly. so, in a sense, it had those three priorities at its heart but didn't meet any of them. so it is kept them all kind ofjuggling in the air? boris johnson is saying to the i people of the united kingdom, "take a cold shower for ten years". - i really do. it is really shocking. my own energy bills have gone up over 100%, and i'm sure . it is a pretty common . story across the nation. my heart breaks to think of people who are living | on the margins and what it is doing to them, - let alone businesses that survive on the margins, i with vast restaurants - or factories that need to be heated at these prices. what is it doing for them? how are they going to survive? is it so surprising, though, for an elected politician to say to voters, "you have to pay more" but "you will have to use less"? it is not a vote—winning message. but the request from green groups and environmentalists

was to say, listen, subsidise people to make homes more efficient. make it easier and cheaper for them to insulate. there are significant cost hurdles to putting in insulation. and given historic energy prices, actually, for many people, it has been a tough decision to make because it takes many years to pay off. but current energy prices, the arguments are more difficult, but that is the argument — let's make the homes more efficient, reduce demand and decrease dependency on foreign fuel. europe has done this. the united kingdom has — by some standards in - western europe, at least — - the least insulated home stock in the region. we like drafts! we all know that! we have all been . there, haven't we? those lovely- old georgian homes.

they do say britain has draughtiest homes and i have never been able to pin that down, find out what it actually means. latika, australia has experienced energy politics and the rough—and—tumble at the last election where it looked like the conservative — small—c liberal national coalition was going to lose, yet it won, and it appeared to win because what labor were saying on energy the voters didn't like. can you remind us of that and will that still play this time? sean, not even the last election — the last decade in australia, basically all the elections have been written by this climate change politics orthodoxy that's been going on, and i don't expect that will change too much of this election. however, what we had for the first time as a bipartisan commitment for net zero by 2050. the incumbent centre—right government led by scott morrison was very reluctantly dragged, kicking and screaming, to that position by boris johnson at cop26 in glasgow. and so, we have that bipartisanship but what we don't necessarily have is the consensus about how to get there. and then along comes what is happening in ukraine and russia really making people

think, "gee, maybe we didn't go all in with the green movement straight away and maybe that is a good thing for us". because if you look carefully at what a lot of the people who are maligned sometimes, or perhaps more accurately called climate deniers in australia — many within the current government — they have always said, "we want to transition, but with technology — "not via taxes or trading schemes". now, that seems to be coming into fruition for them. to answer your question, we will have some climate politics running through this next election, but what we will see is that morphing into a story about an adaptation to climate change which is already very much alive in australia, and also the cost of living. does it mean less extraction? will that be feasible for australian politicians, because it is suggested that is what labor were acknowledging would have to happen at the last election and it paid a big electoral price for that? the current labor leader anthony albanese has come out strongly, saying that coal will be a part of australia's

future so i think that might answer your question. does that mean we are going to be doing what some in the current government would like, which is funding, with taxpayer dollars, new coal—fired power stations? no, i don't think so, but you do see both sides coming to the table in a more centrist way than they have not been able to in a decade. there is such a paradox because you have these terrible floods! and then, of course, before that, the incredible bushfires. australia, in a way, is a barometer of climate change — maybe one of the countries most affected by climate at the moment, and yet, there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of energy. you say there is a consensus to 2050 — they are cutting the money spent on the transition at the moment. they did it very recently, didn't they? i think it is very difficult for people outside australia to understand what a big deal it is to have a conservative government that has been ripped apart, they have changed prime ministers more times now then i can remember over this very issue.

sean laughs. to have a conservative prime minister able to stand up and say, "we are going to net zero by 2050" and he is still in the job and contesting this election — that is huge for australia. justin, with all these pressures in the energy security strategy from the uk, we have this debate and an imminent general election in the next month in australia, where does this leave our ambitions, the stated global ambition for mitigating the effects of climate change and trying to prevent the very worst of it? it is so interesting because you hinted at it in your introduction. there was a un publication — the ipcc, the climate change group within the un — published their report on mitigation and tackling climate change at the beginning of this week and what is interesting, it said, "we need to transition away from fossil fuels as quickly as we can," essentially. what is interesting about the reports — and often, people don't

recognise — these are signed up by the governments of the world. they are written by scientists and then, there is a couple of weeks where the government and scientists get together and wrestle through the words and strike out some stuff and maybe water things down but at the end of the day, those conclusions were signed up by — we're talking saudi arabia, australia, everybody. so, in a sense, this week, we saw consensus — world consensus — that this is a really serious problem, that we are heading for really serious difficulties unless we urgently accelerate the decarbonisation of the world economy — not individual economies, the world economy — but at the evidential basis, you don't see the action we need. crosstalk. and the richest - countries in the world. i would add two points. one is that in australia, you will hear the refrain — and i'm not saying i agree with this, but it is a persuasive argument — "it is no good acting. "we are a fairly tiny country

and if china and india and brazil and all the major polluters don't come to the table, we are crippling our own economy." and if countries like the uk who have been dragging us to the table and have to say you have to allow an exception for us because we have this war going on in ukraine. we have to punish russia, but are we doing ourselves any favours long—term ? isn't there a danger we are going to say to a country absolutely dependent on export revenue... oh, my gosh. we just had a 90—degrees turn in this conversation. _ i think the morality behind i the sanctions against russia as a separate morality from climate change, i they are both morality questions, but a kindl of wholesale slaughter of a nation.... - but that is not my point. is it the danger that if you say to a country like russia that "this is your one key export. "we are going to stop using you. "regardless of what happens in ukraine, it is over." that country then has more incentive to gain more energy—dependent vassal states.

are you saying they going to invade other countries? i am asking you. sean, i don't think i can separate the sanctionsl from the reasons for- the sanctions, but i think the question is an interesting one but i am uncomfortable i trying to separate the two - because i think, for most of us, there is a very direct. connection — and i know we are going to talk about this in a moment so i won't get- ahead — but there are long—term impacts. l russia has a huge reserve . of oil and doesn't have much industry. let's face it — - it is a petro economy. so, yes, there will be consequences. | but i think we have to deal- with the immediate humanitarian circumstances. we will come back to that. a perfectly fair point. justin, the political clout which comes from having energy supplier, one way or another, it's going to shift, isn't it? it has shifted from the middle east. maybe not as fast as some would like, but it is shifting. russia, if we follow this

through, where is it going to go? who will be the new energy titans? well, let's see who occupies that space. really good question. if the un is right — the un says we are essentially at peak carbon. we have to peak before 2025 is what the un ipcc report said. the next two or three years, right? so we are at peak carbon, the point at which this reorganisation happens. let me put it to you, latika, australia could be that energy superpower by putting in wind turbines? to be fair, latika bourke is not... i laughter. i see this out there which, frankly, borisjohnson has recognised and said we have unique access to the continental shelf in a really windy part of the world. you could be doing the same. that is partly the answer to sean's questions — . it is a really interesting question — who will bel the energy power, these oil states in 20 years? . i think the answer is. technology, the people

who create the technology that supplies energy — - we are talking - about wind and solar. crosstalk. there are places which have... and we're talking about green hydrogen, if may also add. which is also technology. this is one of the big real promises and potential and, justin, australia should have been a renewables superpower ten and 20 years ago, we should have had solar farms in the desert. britain also failed to do that. but what we are now doing is we have had a government who have said we are technology agnostic about how we get to net zero. what they are backing — they are not really technology agnostic, they are putting huge subsidies into green hydrogen and there is huge hope in australia that we will become a green hydrogen exporter that will provide asia and potentially even europe — and you should really watch out for announcements on this between britain and australia — and if that is the case, what you will see is wrapping into this whole conversation about ukraine a retilting of supply lines and energy

security, so that we are trading energy with people we like and we trust and are not going to invade other countries. i think that is part— of the equation but elon musk is building solar panels for your roof that can l power your home. | it is impossible not to believej that a big part of the equation is going to be that, - particularly for new— build homes and homes with a specific i design that can be retrofitted. i i think when you talk - about those powerhouses, once that technologyl becomes affordable — and right now, it is- a wealthy person's game — but let's bring the price down. i think that's really interesting. the other thing people don't tend to recognise is what we are also seeing as an electrification of the world as we move away from gas and oil. and once you do that and you have a heat pump in your house and a car with a big battery and a solar panel on the roof, the three can work together to maximise your energy efficiency and minimise use of the grid so in a way it potentially decentralised as power. one of the things that came out of the discussions

is the suggestion from the government that by 2028 half of all new cars sold have to be fully electric, not even dual. tesla, since you mention them, have done a deal with new caledonia in the pacific region — tiny territory, but it happens to have one tenth of the world's nickel and suddenly, everybody needs it for batteries. presumably all of those factors, you say who owns the technology, it could be governments or government—licensed technology, it will give them political power. rare earth minerals is a huge deal for australia and we have been striking deals because we are very sensitive to chinese ownership of this and we are trying to get our own self—sufficiency and that is something we are trying to do with a lot of asian countries including india, which anybody watching this space knows that india is more than happy to go up and buy russian gas at the moment, which is sold to them at bargain basement prices.

that is very concerning for a country like australia because we see a country like india as a potential strategic partner in the indo—pacific. all of this is related and if australia can crack energy security, it can crack climate change, it can also crack global security and on something that matters for us so much in our region which is the wedge on china. has this accelerated the focus on energy security, the transition? i will be interested to hear what everybody else says. it seems to me it is balanced because on the one hand come up with energy prices soaring, the thought would be traditional sources of energy, like lots more coal in germany, and not necessarily renewables because they take time to go in. but in the longer term countries have said, hold on a second, there is now a way to decouple. i think that is exactly right| and that is the good news.

i don't want to get ahead i of our discussion but i think in the short term we are seeing some of the old stuff— being extended, - nuclear power is back. the nature of the discussion has changed _ in the last six weeks. because of what's happening in ukraine. putin has really changed i the way we perceive energy supply and security. in germany, they mothballed nuclear power stations and say now they will bring some back. that is how dramatic this change has been. for all sorts of reasons it is such an incredibly interesting moment. and i hate to be the doom and gloom here, but we do need to be more realistic about what will happen in the immediate term and i think that will grow more acceptable political framework for using fossil fuels in the immediate short term. so a good example is one of the humanitarian things australia has done is send tens of thousands of tonnes of coal, " humanitarian coal", to ukraine. nobody is actually saying that as a bad thing. nobody has called

them out on it. why would you, because ukraine urgently need energy. we are sending them humanitarian coal. it is really good pr. not dirty fuel, it is humanitarian call. scott morrison, who very infamously went into the australian parliament with a lump of coal saying "don't be scared of it, labor party," he gets up and welcomes president zelensky to give his address to the parliament and says "you have our bullets, and our coal" and everyone in australia went, that is a bit political, but president zelensky said thank you for the coal. that is an interesting thought. i want to pick up two things, you talked about nuclear. we have macron up for re—election in france saying we are going for energy independence and it will be nuclear—based. in the uk we are going to end

up with only one nuclear reactor very soon. we have hinkley which the previous conservative government but one started the ball rolling on. labour started that. tony blair. they announced an age of nuclear 12 years ago. that makes sense but the deal was done by the cameron government. the project began in 2007 when they famously said you will be cooking your christmas turkey by 2017. it is not going to be ready by 2026! is the turkey acceptable to eat at this point? but my point was this — at the time with the cameron osborne government there was criticism of the price that the government had guaranteed they would pay for electricity which, i looked it up, £92.50 per megawatt hour. does it look like a good deal now? it does at the moment, but like cold water this is a moment of crisis and fuel

prices are very high. this will be a temporary thing and there is no fundamental shortage of fossil fuels. the world will reorganise itself, and there will be power available, and so prices will fall, in two years. in time, prices will fall. but what hasn't changed, | and to go back, inevitably they will rise and fall, - but this concept of energy security is now . front and centre. just like the pandemic global health at the centre stage i and stopped us from talking - face—to—face, what is happening and what putin has done has forever reminded usj that we need to understand the consequences - of our energy supply. and it has happened at a time when for the first time in history there is a viable economic alternative to fossil fuels, because as the ipcc pointed out renewables are far cheaper than anyone

expected them to be. they have fallen unbelievably, prices have tumbled, so they are often the cheapest form of energy for many countries. latika, while europe agonises over what one of the mayors of ukraine said was blood money, buying russian oil and gas, australia not only sending humanitarian coal but armoured vehicles, bushmasters, to help the ukrainians. do you see anything at the moment that will either accelerate the end of the war or alter the trajectory? very interesting listening to boris johnson and olaf scholz, the german chancellor in london today, and both of them seem to be suggesting we should be strapping in for a very long conflict, and they were suggesting the sanctions would be long term, and therefore the war would be long—term. you only had to listen to nato's bossjens stoltenberg

this week to hear that while russia has withdrawn from northern ukraine and we know that as of today they are regrouping and refocusing on the east in the donbas, putin has not walked away from his ambition to own all of ukraine. so what does that tell us? this isjust the start of some very hard years ahead for europe. i didn't hear what olaf scholz said but it enrages me, - because he is in no position to make these comments. i i find it morally indefensible, germany's position here, - and they are more than any nation on earth fuelling - this war. they didn't cause it, - to be clear, but 220 million american dollars a day go - to moscow to pay for the fuel that warms german homesj and fuels german industry. it is so interesting that— in 2009, when the euro crashed,

germany wagged its finger at greece and said you are| irresponsible, and we are going to cut you off- and their economy shrank 20%. now, oh no, we cannot cut off the oil because our economy. might shrink- a couple of points. what moral hypocrisy. and germans feel this — i surveys say that germans believe the gas i should be cut off. there is a way to shorten this war and olaf scholz. holds the key. yes, will it hurt his economy? yes, but let's look at german history and the legacy, - have you not learned, - is there not a moral stance that goes ahead of 3% shrinkage of your economy for a period, i to stop a bloodbath, really? i think it is outrageous- that he would say "we have to get used to this going on, but don't worry, bmw - and mercedes - are still producing." as a balancing comment on germany, we have to recognise that germany has changed its policies very quickly. they are still-

sending that money. but they are trying to reduce, that is the problem. it is very hard to change the supply of energy in your economy. you cannot do it suddenly. i agree there could be sacrifices made and they will have to ration it because this is such an urgent moment. ijust don't think that that washes for the people ofl mariupol. in our lifetimes, this - is the biggest humanitarian crisis in europe and it is indefensible to say, - "well, it takes time". can i ask you, justin, when you look at the crimes that are alleged to have been committed in places like bucha and elsewhere in ukraine, and that have been laid at the door of the russians, just as a last thought, does that tell you anything about this war and how it's going and where it leaves russia?

i think it does, this is the huge challenge russia is going to face. how is it ever going to — in the medium term, how will it overcome the reputational damage of these apparent war crimes it has committed? it will be a huge challenge, it will be a stain that russia has to try and deal with for decades to come. and what is interesting is as a journalist also l interested in technology, - the way we are seeing this war is like nothing before. witnessing video of war crimes as they happen, j he can't hide behind this. thank you all very much, a terrific discussion, thank you forjoining us. thank you for your company, more of the same next week, join us then. from all of us, goodbye.

well, it was a cold but sunny start to saturday. how's the rest of the day looking? well, not bad at all. but clouds will be bubbling up in the afternoon, and we are expecting a few showers, but the majority of the day is going to be dry and bright, at the very least. so here's the satellite picture. big weather systems out in the atlantic, but clouds across the uk are coming in from the north at the moment and clipping scotland, and you can see the winds are also blowing in from the north, so it's a chilly source, so our air is cold. now, today we'll see clouds bubbling up right across the country, but i think the sunniest weather will be across the southwest of england and southern parts of wales and probably staying dry here. a few scattered showers elsewhere and then in the north of scotland, most frequent showers, but disappointing temperatures — seven in aberdeen, no higher than 12 degrees in the south. now, tonight the skies are clear,

the winds fall light, a typical recipe for a frosty night this time of the year. i think in city centres early on sunday morning it will be around freezing, maybe just below. in rural spots it will be colder than that. but it does mean that sunday gets off to a sunny, crisp start — a beautiful sunrise tomorrow. but the winds are starting to shift direction out towards the west here, and also we see an advancing weather front, so it does mean clouds will thicken across the west, and actually elsewhere we'll see clouds bubbling up in the afternoon, so a bright rather than sunny day tomorrow. onto monday and tuesday now. now, the winds will really have changed direction by then, you can see they're coming in mostly from the south or even the southeast. that means a lot of clouds spreading across the uk, outbreaks of rain, so two unsettled days, monday and tuesday. but with this change in wind direction also comes a warmer atmosphere from the south, in fact, all the way from the azores and southern climes. you can see

that stream of mild air coming our way, not just across the uk, but into scandinavia and other parts of europe. and in fact, you can see the temperatures by midweek could be approaching 20 degrees celsius across england and certainly the mid—teens in scotland. so let's summarise all of this — a bright but fairly chilly weekend, then monday and tuesday brings a lot more cloud and outbreaks of rain, and then warmer from wednesday onwards. enjoy your day.

this is bbc news — welcome if you're watching here in the uk or around the globe. our top stories... hope that more people in ukraine will be able to escape areas besieged by russian forces: giving safe exit to tens of thousands trapped in the shattered port city of mariupol. the brutal story of one family trying to flee from chernihiv north of the capital kyiv — we have a special report western officials say moscow has re—organised its military leadership in ukraine to put a general who commanded russian forces in syria in charge. angry scenes in pakistan's parliament between supporters and opponents of the prime minister, imran khan, ahead of a vote of no confidence. the wife of the uk finance minister rishi sunak says she will now pay uk taxes on her overseas income, after legally avoiding it for years.

campaigning has ended in the first round of