this is bbc news. we'll have the headlines and all the main news stories for you at the top of the hour, as newsday continues — straight after hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur. europeans are already shivering at the prospect of a full—on energy crisis this coming winter. partly, it's fallout from russia's invasion of ukraine and the disruption to supplies of oil and gas. but there is a bigger global picture. the world is still dangerously reliant on fossil fuels, even as climate change makes decarbonisation ever

more urgent. my guest is boss of the international energy agency, fatih birol. will the much—vaunted transition to clean energy be derailed by a short—term energy panic? fatih birol in paris, welcome to hardtalk. thank you very much, thank you very much. let me start, if i may, mr birol, with words of yours. not long ago you said, "what the world is going through today is a major, it might be the first, global energy crisis in terms

of depth and complexity." with words like that, aren't you in danger of turning an energy problem into an energy panic? i don't think so. what i am trying to do is that people understand the dimensions of the crisis we are in and to take corresponding measures. if we are not able to read the game, how deep and how complex our global energy crisis is, then we might not be able to get the right solutions and give the right answers. for example, when we look at europe, we have seen on 2a february, the invasion of russia, and the international energy agency, just one week after, the 1st of march, we came up with a ten—point plan how to reduce russia's reliance — er, europe's

reliance on russia. and i see that not much happened in the last four months, but we are, slowly but surely, in europe, putting measures together how to go through this difficult winter in front of us. so it was a necessary alarm bell ringing from the iea that we are in the middle of the first global energy crisis. yeah, and how much of the responsibility for this crisis that you identify, how much lies with the russia—ukraine war? because i'm mindful that prices were spiking — gas, oil prices were spiking even before that invasion. yeah, we were already seeing some high gas prices. and this was also mainly due to the russia's strategic behaviour. even before the invasion, russia reduced its gas exports

to europe significantly. and already, a few months ago before the invasion, i said clearly that the reduction of russian gas to europe might be an indication, early indication that the russia—ukraine crisis may end up here. but now, the main increase with the oil and gas prices were mainly as a result of russia's invasion of ukraine. so we have to be realistic. yeah, so when commission chief von der leyen and many other european politicians directly accuse moscow of weaponising energy, do you think they are correct? i think they make a very good point there, because if we remember, as of 2a february, that day, russia was the number one oil exporter of the world, number one natural gas exporter

of the world, a major player in the coal markets. and russia is now using its means in order to reach its political goals. it is very clear to me. the europeans say that to combat this weaponisation of energy, they need to get ready now for the coming winter. and i think the eu commission and eu member states have committed to trying to get their gas reserves up to 80% before the onset of winter. now you analyse what is happening across europe very closely. are they going to achieve that goal, yes or no? they might be able to do so if they move now. you said they are starting now. in my view, they should have started four months ago, the europeans, in different, different countries, but better later than never.

if, if they take very strong measures — some of them will hurt the consumers, such as making some sacrifices in our daily lives — they may be ready for winter. we should be very mindful of the fact that there will not be additional natural gas coming to europe, in addition to already contracted from united states, maximum capacity coming from norway, maximum capacity coming azerbaijan, algeria. we cannot discover a gas in the moon and what needs to happen is how we are going to replace the russian gas, the rest of the russian gas, which is disappearing in the markets, without making major changes in our daily lives, in our economies. so this is the issue, this is on the table. and we're going to get into that in great detail.

but before we get there, i mean, you're one of the most influential energy analysts in the world. and as you say, you can't magic new sources of gas from the moon. but what one doesn't know, the deep uncertainty right now, is whether the russians will continue to supply any gas at all over the coming months or whether they will effectively close down gas supplies to europe. we saw nord stream one, the main pipeline they use, was actually closed for a short period of time. now it's operating at something like 40% capacity. what is your reading of what putin is going to do with those russian gas exports over the coming months? i think this is not new, this is a couple of months, in fact, at least, perhaps ten months, russia is following a strategic line here, just giving some gas, reducing it, increasing it, and creating a lot of uncertainty. my biggest fear is that there

will be in winter, there will be not enough amount of gas for europeans and european countries. solidarity will be at a historical test whether europe will come together and give a collective answer to this russian policies, or we will see that there will be competition within europe and the so—called wild west. are we going to see that? and this is something which is, of course, very much in line with russia's policies. when you look at the russia policies, not a unified europe would be, of course, good news from their perspective as they stand now. yeah, so let's get to one of your main points, which is about what europe must do in terms of modifying consumption. right now, as we speak, european member states

are talking about committing to a 15% cut in gas consumption to help them get through the winter without economic breakdown. do you think a 15% cut in consumption is going to be enough? i think this is a very, very good step in the right direction. we have to do two things. one, we have to reduce the consumption. for example, we may need to, in europe, heat our buildings, playing with the thermostat, bringing, reducing down 1—2 degrees celsius. maybe in the buildings, we may need to see that the hot water availability will be a bit shorter than before. this is the type of policies we need to push and we need to hopefully, on a voluntary basis, we can reach this 15%. if not, we may have to have

some regulatory measures. we are in a war time, we shouldn't forget this. we cannot solve the problems with our usual customary measures. the second thing is we have to replace gas with other options we have in hand, short—term measures. what are those? we have to make use of coal. it is definitely not the best option, but not to be paralysing the economy, we may have to make use of coal. second, in the countries where there is a decision of shutting down nuclear power plants, they may need to give a second thought to that and they may need to postpone it. and of course, we have to cut the red tape for the renewable projects such as solar and wind, again, to replace the gas. there's an awful lot in that answer. and i'm going to get back to coal and nuclear and renewables.

but before i do that, itjust strikes me, mr birol, you're kind of naive, aren't you, when you say, you know what, we can solve this problem, or at least we can tackle it if we only do certain things. and you've got your ten—point plan. it includes speeding up the replacement of gas boilers, encouraging temporary thermostat adjustment by consumers with their domestic heating, reducing the speed on highways, you say, working from home, more car—free sundays in cities — all these things sound great. but you have to be a realist that the publics across europe are not actually going to go to their thermostats and just turn them down because you tell them to, are they? i mean, you know, all this voluntary behaviour change that you're talking about, it's probably not going to happen. first of all, you'll be surprised that when we make this suggestion, several countries, several ngos told us that they would like to be part of the solution without making

a major campaign by the iea, by us, by european union, because they see that there's a big unfair war going on in ukraine. we talk about now the energy crisis, but there is other crises, the humanitarian crisis which is going through in ukraine. and many people want to be part of the solution, give a support to that and hence, such voluntary measures. but i agree with you that to expect every single person in europe will be a part of the solution will be difficult. therefore, there should be some voluntary measures, but there should be, from the government side, some regulatory measures taken. and in my view, the government buildings, the administrative buildings, the office buildings, they should take the lead as example to the rest of the population by reducing the temperature in the government buildings. by the cars, i mean, iokph reducing slower shouldn't be a major problem

than millions of people going through such a tragedy in ukraine. i will give you one example... ok, so you're saying it's a mix of voluntary and regulatory action. will there be rationing? will there be rationing of energy in europe this coming winter — yes or no? i think if we are not able to make this significant reduction in consumption, i wouldn't exclude that there'll be serious rationing in european economies this winter. and do you think we could even get to the point, and some in germany are already talking about this, of factories having to shut down, people being laid off because there simply isn't the energy to power up the economy? i think we have to, in europe, and in the countries, have a plan. the emergency plan, contingency plan, in order to minimise the negative effects of not

having enough energy in europe. it wouldn't go through without any scars in the european economy and the workforce. the issue is here. the job of the government is to minimise those negative effects. we have to plan it in a way that the impact on the industrial sector is minimised. but to think that there will not be any effect on the industry is, in my view, on the naive side. now i want to move on to the point you made earlier about having to use, for example, coalas a resource to help get through this energy crisis. are you the same fatih birol who has been on this programme, on hardtalk before, proclaiming your absolute commitment to decarbonisation of the economy and telling me that it can be achieved but only if governments get serious about phasing

out fossil fuels? how can you come on the show today and tell me that, you know what, europeans have to accept that they should embrace coal? now, of course, iam not the same fatih birol. i am, i think, two years older. but i believe fighting against the climate crisis is still one of the top priorities for me and for my agency. but we are now going through a war time. there should be, there could be, some temporary measures to go out of this difficult, the danger zone. and when we look at the future, i see that the future is going to be dominated by clean energy technologies. and i want all the governments and the businesses around the world, they should not use the putin's invasion of ukraine in order to justify their large—scale

fossil fuel investments. i think this would be factually wrong and morally wrong, because if you make today a large—scale fossil fuel investments, for example, coal mine, opening, investing in a coal mine, the first coal will come to the markets in 5—6 years of time. and at that time, 5—6 years of time, i am not sure there will be a need for more coal for the world. there is a business risk there and, as i always say, there is a major climate risk, as well. you can dress it up any way you want, but ultimately, your message is that you are backtracking on some of the things you've said in the past about moving off coal. and here's the words of neil makarov of the climate action network. he says, "countries right now are backing — continuing to back fossil fuel energy, rather than investing

enough in renewables. and at best," he says, "all we're doing right now, facing this crisis, is substituting one carbon dependency for another." that is a long—term disaster for the planet. i completely agree. what i am saying is to make use of the existing coal plants. they are already built, they're already with us. they were about to be closed down, but you can make use of them for this winter. it is the urgent measure, temporary, but when we look at the future, there should not be any new coal plants open. there should be no investments in new coal plants. ok, so you start finessing it by saying, "you know what, we'll produce more coal, we'll burn more coal, but we won't build new coal plants." i put it to you that that is a nuance that many around the world will miss. many in the developing world will see a huge element of hypocrisy here,

that the west faces an energy crisis, and as soon as they face a crisis, they open up the floodgates to new carbon emissions. and in the developing world, surely the long—term message will be, ah, well, if the west thinks it's ok to burn coal when they've got a problem, we will continue burning coal too. and we see it in india, china, and a host of other countries that they are still, still building new coal—fired power stations and strategically still committed to coal. yeah, so in the western countries, western countries where it is only europe, there will be, this winter, there will be use of existing coal plants just for a couple of months of time. but my message is clear. the world doesn't need any new coal investments in terms of mines, and in terms of the power plants. and when we look around the world, many countries

understand this, to be honest with you. and when we look at the last year, for example, more than 90% of power plants built in the world were renewables. why? because solar is very cheap, and people are building solar power plants — not because they want to save the planet only, but also, it is very cheap. it is a favourite option. and i can tell you that the solar is the new king of electricity markets, and it is growing very strongly. and there will be a small blip here, but in the future, in the next years to come, renewables will be dominating the game for electricity generation, together with the nuclear, getting additional wind now in different countries around the world. itjust strikes me that you are a very big optimist, mr birol, because you, for years now, have been saying "it's difficult,

but you know what? we can get to net zero carbon by 2050," but because of the crisis we see and the spike in fossil fuel prices that's come with it, what we also see is that from countries like norway, where they're expanding their offshore oil exploration one more time, to developing world countries like the democratic republic of congo, which is now talking about opening up a vast expanse of virgin rainforest and peatland to oil exploration because they see the price of oil rising and the amount of money they could make, i put it to you that right around the world, what we see is a new phase of fossilfuel strategic commitment, which is going to undermine your optimism. yeah, you are right, i am optimist. but my optimism is based on the facts. the facts that you put on the table, norway, drc,

and others, are right. and there are several, several examples like that around the world. but if you look at the big picture, i see that a new global energy economy is emerging based on renewables, as i said, growing very strongly. efficiency, hydrogen, electric cars. i'll give you one example. 2019, when i was in your programme, i think, the first time, only 2% of all the cars sold in the world were electric cars, only 2%, 2019. today, 2022, only three years later, it is coming to 15% — 15% of all the cars sold, electric cars. and it is now growing. and half of those cars, electric cars sold in the world are in china. so the countries want to be part of the clean energy system

now, not only not only to address the environmental climate problems, but also to be a part of the next chapter of the energy industry, next chapter of the economy, so that they are not left behind with the old system. so i see this coming. it is coming from, you mentioned india. india is one of the leaders of the solar energy, together with china and other countries. again, china, number one in electric cars, number one in wind, hydropower. this will come, clean energy will dominate the game. clearly, over the last three years, you've hung on to your optimism. a final question for you, then, and it's about leadership. leadership to ensure that the current energy crisis that you talk about doesn't derail the long—term strategic energy transition. here's what south africa's environment minister said. "the ultimate measure

of climate leadership is not what countries do in times of comfort and convenience, but what they do in times of challenge and controversy" — ie, times like today. how important is it that the united states, for example, sticks to its green energy plan? because right now, it's stuck in the congress. how important is it that the us delivers? i think it is extremely important, us coming back to the international partnership and being one of the key drivers of the climate agenda is extremely important and i hope it will continue. but us alone is not enough. we need europe, we need china, we need india. this is a global, global problem. more than 90% of the emissions growth in the next years will come from the emerging countries. so we have to make sure that we address this issue collectively.

there are some geopolitical differences between the countries now, but when it comes to climate change, we have to make sure that everybody moves together. and it is the reason, mr sackur, i have taken this, the fight against climate change is a north star for the international energy agency, as the energies, the main responsible sector creating this climate challenge, and i continue with my optimism and determinism. well, fatih birol, we thank you very much forjoining us on hardtalk. thank you very much.

hello there. the weather story's looking pretty benign for the next few days. we'll have very little wind around to move the weather along. but one thing you will notice over the next few days is that it'll be warming up, particularly across england and wales. most places will be dry, but there will be some showers around — increasingly so across the north and the west of the country as we move into the weekend. so, we've got this weak area of high pressure just to the east of the uk, rather cloudy high, drawing up some warmer air from the near continent. but there is a lot of cloud trapped underneath it, so a rather grey day, i think on thursday. showery bursts of rain continuing to affect parts of northern ireland, northern england, southern scotland, certainly through the morning, it'll tend to ease down into the afternoon. could see a few showers developing across western areas, most places will be dry. despite the cloud amounts, it'll feel warmer — 22—24 celsius in the south. we could see 20 celsius or so in the central belt of scotland. so, it looks like it should be a dry affair for the commonwealth games' opening ceremony in birmingham, temperatures at around 19—20 celsius, so feeling quite mild. now, as we head through

thursday night, it looks like most places will hold onto the cloud — again, the cloud will be thickest across parts of northern england, southern scotland, where we could see some splashes of rain. but for most places, it will be dry, and a milder night to come, lows of 12—14 celsius. so for friday, we start to see this area of low pressure pushing into the far northwest of the country. the breeze will be picking up here later in the day, but much of the uk will be under the influence of high pressure once again. so, we'll start off with quite a bit of cloud around friday morning across northern england, southern scotland. that should tend to fizzle away, and we could see the cloud melt away, as well. so, i think there's a greater chance of seeing the sunshine on friday. the odd shower will develop again into the afternoon, but most places will be dry, 25—28 celsius across england and wales, the low 20s across the north — so feeling a lot warmer. saturday's another warm, muggy day, but we will have more cloud around outbreaks of rain affecting the north and the west of the country, as that weather front continues to push its way eastwards. very little getting

into the southeast, the areas where we really do need the rainfall. again, it'll be another warm day — low 20s in the north, up to around 25—26 celsius across the southeast. it stays warm into sunday and monday. there's always the chance of rain in the north and the west, but tending to stay dry in the south and the east.

welcome to newsday, reporting live from singapore, i'm suranjana tewari. the headlines: china warns the us it will �*bear the consequences' if house speaker nancy pelosi visits taiwan. president's xi and biden are due to speak later. the united states says it has offered russia a deal aimed at freeing the american basketballer brittney griner. trying to avert a global food crisis, the first ships carrying crucial grain supplies prepare to leave ports in ukraine. he's credited with inspiring the global green movement, tributes are paid to environmentalist,

james lovelock who's died aged 103.