this is bbc news. the headlines: emmanuel macron is ahead in the polls in the first round of the french presidential election, but his far—right rival, marine le pen, has gained ground. the next round will take place in two weeks' time. more than 1200 bodies have been found in areas around kyiv that were controlled by putin's troops and more russian attacks have been reported in the south of the country. tens of thousands of protesters have taken to the streets of pakistan to protest against imran khan being removed as prime minister, following a no—confidence vote in parliament over the weekend. mr khan has been blamed for the country's crumbling

economy. now on bbc news, dateline london with shaun ley. hello, i'm shaun ley. welcome to our weekly round table discussion between bbc specialists and the foreign correspondents who write, blog and broadcast to audiences in their home countries from the dateline london. with us this week — latika bourke, a columnist for two australian newspapers — the age in melbourne and the sydney morning herald.

justin rowlatt, the bbc�*s climate editor. and jeffrey kofman. 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, but 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're talking about new nuclear power, we're 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 was 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, 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 their 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 . that's a pretty common story over the nation. i 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 he 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's not a vote—winning

message. but the request was from green groups and environmentalists was to say, listen, subsidise people to make their 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 was the argument — let's make the homes more efficient, reduce demand and a 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've all been there, haven't we? - those lovely- old georgian homes.

people say britain is the draftiest taste 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 this election. however, what we have 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's 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 more 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're 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 the 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's 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's 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's interesting, it said, "we need to transition away from fossil "fuels as quickly as we can," essentially.

what's interesting about these reports — and often, people don't recognise — these are signed up by the governments of the world. they're 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, 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... crosstalk. oh, my gosh. we just had a 90—degrees turn in this conversation. _ i think the reality behind - the sanctions against russia is a separate morality from climate change, j they are both mortality questions, but a kind l of wholesale slaughter of a nation.... - crosstalk. but that's not my point. is it the danger that if you say to a country like russia that "this is your one key export. "we're 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. i am asking you.

are you saying they going to invade other countries? crosstalk. 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're 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 cloud 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're 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's a really interesting question — who will bej 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're 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 as we have had a government who have said we are technology agnostic about how we get to net zero. what they are backing — they're 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 we are not going to invade other countries. i think that is part— of the equation but elon musk is now building solar panels for your roof that can - 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 the powerhouses, once that technologyl becomes affordable — 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, once 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 your use

of the grid so, in a way, it potentially decentralised as power. one of the things that came out of the discussions of this strategy is the suggestion from the government that by 2028 half of all new cars sold have to be fully electric — not even dual, fully electric. tesla, since you mention them, have done a deal with new caledonia in the pacific region — tiny, 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. 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. actually, 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 being 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. so, all of this is related and if australia can crack energy security, it can crack climate change and bring down emissions and it can also crack global security and on something that matters for us so much in our region, which is, of course a hedge on china. has this accelerated the focus on energy security, the transition, and i'll 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. the world to say 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 i weeks. because of what's happening in ukraine. because of russia. putin has really changed i the way we perceive energy in germany — it's incredible — 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 i think we do need to be more realistic about what will happen in the immediate term and i think that will actually grow a more acceptable political framework for using fossil fuels in the immediate short term. so, a good example this is one of the humanitarian things australia has done is send tens of thousands of tonnes of coal

— "humanitarian coal", they're calling it — 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. and you are doing it to help people. we are sending them humanitarian coal. and actually, when president zelensky... it is really good pr. not a dirty fuel, it is humanitarian coal. and this is interesting, because 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, "our prayers and our coal" and everyone in australia went, "that is a bit political," but president zelensky actually came back and 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 notjust going for energy security, 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. no, labour started that. 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. is not going to be ready! just like the cold _ is not going to be ready! just like the cold shower. is the turkey acceptable to eat at this point? raw turkey! but my point was this — at the time with the cameron 0sborne government, there was criticism of the price that the government had guaranteed they would pay for electricity which, i looked it up earlier, £92.50 per megawatt hour. does it look like a good deal now?

it does at the moment, but again, like cold water, this is a moment of crisis and obviously, fuel prices are very high. this will be a temporary thing. there is no fundamental shortage of fossil fuels. the world will reorganise itself and there will be power available and so, prices will fall, ithink, in two years. in time, prices will fall. but what hasn't changed, | just 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 —— just like the pandemic put global health at the centre i stage — and stopped us from talking face—to—face for two- years, what is happening and what putin has done has forever reminded usj that we need to really - understand the consequences of our energy amply. - 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 avilable and 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 sending armoured vehicles. yes, bushmasters. bushmasters, to help the ukrainians. do you see anything at the moment that will either accelerate the end of the war or project the direction, the the trajectory of this war? i thought it was very interesting listening to borisjohnson and 0laf scholz, the german chancellor in london today, and both of them seems to be suggesting we should be strapping in for a very long conflict, and they were suggesting the sanctions should would be long—term, therefore the war would be long—term. and you only had to listen

to nato's bossjens stoltenberg this week to say that while russia has withdrawn from northern ukraine now — 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? i think this isjust the start of some very hard years ahead for europe. i didn't hear what 0laf scholz said but itjust enrages me. i 0laf scholz is in no position to make these comments. i i find it morally indefensible, germany's position here, - and i find it so offensive. they are more, than any nation on earth, fuelling j thisi war. they didn't cause it, - to be clear, but 200 milion euros, $220 million - dollars a day go to moscow to pay for the fuel - that warms german homes 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! "we are going to cut you off and you are going to pay!" i their economy shrank 20%. now, "0h, 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 0laf scholz - holds the key. and yes, will it- hurt his economy? yes, but let's look at german history, look at the legacy, . have you not learned? is there not a moral stance - that goes ahead of 3% shrinkage of your economy for a period, to stop a bloodbath? - i mean, really? i think that it is outrageous that he would say "well, i "we have to get used to this going on, but don't worry — i

"bmw and siemens and mercedes are still producing." _ as a balancing comment on germany, we have to recognise that germany has changed its policies very quickly! but they are not cutting off. 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. it's a huge thing. you cannot do it suddenly. i agree there could be sacrifices made and they could say they have to ration it because this is such an urgent moment. ijust don't think that that washes for the people ofl mariupol. i get that there will be displacement. - 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, other parts 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 come — well, in the medium term, how will it overcome the reputational damage of these apparent war crimes it has committed? i think 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 . as a journalist who's also interested in technology, - the way we are seeing this war is like nothing before. witness video of war. crimes as they happen. 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.

hello, there. there was a lot of sunshine around first thing on sunday, but it was cold and frosty, and it was quite widespread across the country. these were the kind of temperatures we woke up to first thing on sunday morning — as low as —6 celsius. now, all change and quite literally as we speak because of this area of low pressure that's throwing cloud right across the country and that is acting like a blanket, so it is preventing those temperatures from falling too far. it will be a frost—free start to monday morning with temperatures more likely about four, five, six degrees above freezing. so, a difference to the feel of the weather and quite a cloudy, grey story first thing in the morning. the winds are going to strengthen and that's going to throw up some showery outbreaks of rain through wales, northern ireland, north west england as well through the day. quite blustery winds as well, either coming from a southerly or south—easterly direction, widely gusting

in excess of 30 miles an hour. but sheltered eastern areas will see some sunshine and with the wind direction now coming from the south, that means it will be a little bit warmer — 17 degrees the expected high. thundery downpours are likely into the south—west through monday night into tuesday and we can trail that weather front all the way back down into spain. in fact, the air is coming up from the sahara. it's going to be pushing its way steadily north, with the exception perhaps of the northern isles — here, you will stay in the cooler air for the next few days. so, that means first thing on tuesday morning, we're likely to see temperatures four degrees in lerwick but ten or 11 degrees not out of the question across central and southern parts of england and wales. yes, there's going to be some rain, some of it quite heavy, some thundery downpours pushing their way steadily north and because the air is coming from the sahara, it could have sprinkling of saharan dust in that rain as well — that mightjust turn your washing or your cars a little bit grainy, a little bit orange at times. in terms of the feel of things,

17 or 18 degrees down into the south—east. where the cloud and the rain lingers, we're only looking out around a maximum of 6—8 celsius. but the rain will ease away, the isobars open up through the middle part of the week, and the weather story is set to quieten down. it looks likely that wednesday will be the warmest day of the week with 19 or 20 degrees not out of the question. a good deal of dry weather as well as we head towards the easter weekend. whatever you're doing, take care and enjoy.

welcome to bbc news. i'm mark lobel. our top stories: emmanuel macron is on target to win the first ballot in the french presidential election, but marine le pen gains ground at the polls. translation: don't make a mistake, this isn't over. this is decisive for our country and europe. grim discoveries in ukraine: more than 1200 bodies are found in areas around kyiv that were previously occupied by russian troops. tens of thousands take to the streets in pakistan to protest against the removal of the former prime minister,