not this afternoon. it was certainly not a day to be spent building sand castles on the beach. what is in store for tomorrow? well, a little bit quieter, may be some more sunshine for tomorrow as well. we start off cloudy and grey, isolated showers, but out to the west the sunshine will build, pushing steadily eastwards, and into the afternoon, a quite quiet and calm afternoon, a quite quiet and calm afternoon with light winds, pleasant temperatures, 20—24. make the most of it, the story will change, that bodes well for the cricket at the oval, once again it looks like we could see a day of an interrupted play before showers are set to arrive into the weekend. yes, we tend to part three, another low pressure moving on, the third weekend in a row we have seen a low setting out to the north—west, that will bring a rash of showers, some heavy and persistent in the south east to begin with, but then

circulating around that low, on saturday, almost the most frequent widespread showers, further north and west, so temperatures likely to be a degree down on the last couple of days, looking at 17—22. if you have not already guessed it, as we head into the weekend, a the era of global warming has ended. the era of global boiling has arrived. the air is unbreathable. the heat is unbearable. scientists say this month is the warmest in human history.

the head of the un wants action but so much depends on national governments. polls suggest the public nshares a sense of urgency about the need for change, but what's their attitude to paying for it? we'll hear the views of experts and get a sense of the climate change policies that could be on offer at the next election. also tonight... android phones have these tiny accelerometers built into them which can sense earthquakes. big data — would you bet your life on it? we have evidence a google app that was supposed to warn of eathquakes may have come up short. he did not receive any alert? nothing on your phone? is donald trump about to be indicted for attempting to overturn the result of the 2020 election? we speak to a legal expert in the know. and we talk to the survivor of a conflict that ended 70 years

ago today who's determined that it should not become a forgotten war. i went into a pub with my father and jack came in and he said, "oh, i haven't seen you for a while. where have you been?" i said, "i've been to korea." he said, "did you have a nice time?" you know, it was peripheral to them. good evening. in trying to understand climate change sometimes we get snapshots — like tourists fleeing fires in greece earlier this week — and then we get the big picture. today it was more of the latter, with the met office revealing modelling that suggests last year, with its record breaking temperatures, will, by the end of this century, be considered a cool one. we also had a stark warning from scientists who said july is "virtually certain" to be the world's hottest ever recorded month, with un chief antonio guterres also sounding the alarm, saying the world is entering a period

of "global boiling". the forecasts by their nature deal with decades but what about the perspective, say, of the next year or two, and in particular how to match up widespread voter anxiety about climate change with meaningful policies that get public support. here's kate. climate change presents a fundamental challenge to both politics and journalism. its a question of timing. the climate has warmed by about 1.2 degrees in the past 140 years. that s a long way from five year election cycles or daily headlines. what's clear is most uk voters care about the climate. recent polling shows around half want the government to take more action. for those who voted conservative in 2019 but would now vote labour — the figure is higher. research also shows as people are personally affected by extreme weather they become more likely to vote for parties promising to tackle green issues. we saw that in last year 5 australian election. traditionally conservative areas of recently flooded brisbane

or wildfire hit sydney voted for candidates who urged action. the counter to this is when there is a perceived cost, economic or otherwise — support for change tends to drop and opposition grows. take uk opinions on onshore wind, more than three quarters support it generally, but that falls to just over 40% if people are asked about having it in their local area. we ve long known balancing the cost of change would be tricky. the paris agreement — when countries signed up to keeping warming below two degrees — included the need for a just transition, sharing the benefits while supporting those who might lose out economically. when things are not perceived as "just" tensions can flare. take germany. earlier this year, a proposed bill to make sure from 2024 broken heating systems would be replaced by units which used at least 65% renewable energy was leaked to the press. there was an immediate intense backlash. the heating law was the biggest political fight in germany in a long time i feel so it was delayed, depending on the size of the city,

by two or three years. and also, more options were given to people, even though experts say those options do not really make sense so there is a much stronger sense now on using hydrogen for heating and being allowed to use wood burning everywhere and before it was only in cases where it works so it has been loosened up a lot, they took away the controversy but environmental groups say it also took away the climate advantages it was supposed to bring. because of these risks, some politicians try to focus not on the cost but the opportunities. that s exactly whatjoe biden has been attempting in the world s second largest emitter, the us. he 5 introduced subsidies and tax credits worth hundreds of billions for things like renewable energy and electric cars. modeling indicates these carrots known as the inflation reduction act should have a significant impact on lowering us emissions. but if you look at the briefing for this bill the first paragraph doesn t mention the climate at all. instead it sells a vision of lowering costs for families, creating good paying jobs and growing the economy.

the reality of those opportunities — and potential economic impacts — are yet to be determined. china — responsible for 30% of the world 5 greenhouse gas emissions — has also long framed its climate action around popular priorities. early targets to lower coal power spoke about clean air for its smog filled cities. but after blackouts in 2021 thoughts turned to energy security — coal plants grew once again. the president, the language he is using, it talks about historic responsibility and natural inevitable choice for the prosperity of the nation so it is likening this to almost the american dream, it is part of the dream that cutting carbon is part of the historical china for china's prosperity. alongside coal, global energy monitor suggests china has built more than 40% of the world 5 solar and wind operating capacity. but lets move beyond government investment back to the tricker issue of changing consumer behaviour. this year france banned flying between cities with an equivalent 2.5 hour trainjourney.

having an alternative is obviously important. but this wasn t dreamt up by politicians, it was suggested by a citizen assembly. randomly selected people, briefed on the issues and asked to debate what should be done. remember, climate has a timing problem — most of the cost of inaction is hidden far beyond the election. as political leaders are discovering, today s successful policy needs to bring everyone along — not easy in a cost of living crisis. to explore the politics of this in the uk, we'rejoined now by nick. how do these fault lines develop on this before the next election, between the parties?- this before the next election, between the parties? there are divisions between _ between the parties? there are divisions between the _ between the parties? there are divisions between the main - between the parties? there are i divisions between the main parties but in recent weeks to varying degrees has been a joint theme, a slight feeling that for both of them, are we moving into the sewer lane on net—zero? for labour, the big plan is to borrow £28 billion a year to deliver our very ownjoe biden green energy revolution. the

idea initially was to start borrowing money on the first day and rachel reeves the shadow chancellor says we will borrow that in the middle of the next parliament and the view is absolutely committed to that policy but fiscal discipline comes first. for the conservatives, they spotted a chance on what they regard as their surprise victory in the uxbridge and south ruislip by—election which was deep voter anger on the ulez charges and this is about pollution, not about net—zero but it is a green cost and rishi sunak was saying earlier this week that you cannot impose excessive costs in this area and there appear to be a downing street question over fundamental policy which is no new petrol or diesel cars being sold from 2013 and it turns out that policy does stay but the government will lengthen the deadline and give more time for private landlords to phase out gas boilers. there is a big division

between the two parties which as keir starmer says from the day he becomes prime minister, if he does, no new licences for oil and gas in the north sea although he will honour old ones. grant shapps said earlier this week that we will max out the oil and gas but he says that is responsible because they are on the decline anyway. what is responsible because they are on the decline anyway.— is responsible because they are on the decline anyway. what about the fault lines within _ the decline anyway. what about the fault lines within the _ the decline anyway. what about the fault lines within the party - the decline anyway. what about the fault lines within the party is? - fault lines within the party is? there are differences but it is a different story in each, for labour, an absolute consensus that we face a climate emergency but there is a feeling amongst some in the shadow cabinet that ed miliband, the lead on this, quite the evangelist, that he has been drawing up ideas out of the spotlight, so will they prove costly in a general election? for the conservatives, it is almost that climate change is human caused and most believe we need action but there are deep divisions about how quickly you do that. jacob rees—mogg, he is sceptical of the

need to act quickly and people like alok sharma, the former cop president and zac goldsmith believe we need to move fast and they fear that this is not something that causes rishi sunak to wake up in great alarm every morning. thank ou. well, let's discuss the politics of these possible climate change measures with carla denyer, co—leader of the greens, mark garnier, conservative mp and former trade minister, and in the studio by barry gardiner, labour, also formerly minister and shadow climate change secretary. welcome to all of you. carla denyer, fascinating line from the top of the two way, both parties might be moving into the sewer lane on net—zero? is that how you see it? it is and i think it is extremely concerning that many people in the uk, a majority of brits, will be

concerned about. we heard about polling that shows over 50% of the population want the government to move faster on decarbonising the country but it looks like both the government and the opposition or instead or at least some in the parties are arguing about putting the brakes on despite the fact we can hearfrom the brakes on despite the fact we can hear from the the brakes on despite the fact we can hearfrom the un and climate scientists that this is the starkest and most urgent call yet, so world leaders understand we need to go faster in the public understands we need to go faster. and yet, the labour and tory leaderships do not seem to. this is why it is so important to have more green mps are elected so we can pull whoever who was in government in the right direction on those important policies to decarbonise the country and do that in a fair way that makes sure the costs fall where they should, on those with the broadest shoulders, and on the companies who are polluting the most. we shoulders, and on the companies who are polluting the most.— are polluting the most. we can put that to barry _

are polluting the most. we can put that to barry gardiner. _ are polluting the most. we can put that to barry gardiner. she - are polluting the most. we can put that to barry gardiner. she would i that to barry gardiner. she would like to drag you in the direction of this policies and i suspect you might be in favour of going faster than the frontbenchers? i wonder whether you would accept the characterisation of slowing down? he is referring to the phasing in of that £28 billion that labour promised to spend over the lifetime of parliament rather than immediately? if of parliament rather than immediately?— of parliament rather than immediately? of parliament rather than immediatel ? , ., ., immediately? if this was a war, we would not be _ immediately? if this was a war, we would not be arguing _ immediately? if this was a war, we would not be arguing about - immediately? if this was a war, we | would not be arguing about whether the labour— would not be arguing about whether the labour strategy or the tory strategy — the labour strategy or the tory strategy was better. we would work together— strategy was better. we would work together to try to win. it is a war. it is _ together to try to win. it is a war. it is a _ together to try to win. it is a war. it is a war— together to try to win. it is a war. it is a war for— together to try to win. it is a war. it is a war for survival and climate change _ it is a war for survival and climate change threatens everything. it threatens our food security, through drought— threatens our food security, through drought and desertification, threatens homes and cities through flooding _ threatens homes and cities through flooding and coastal inundation. when _ flooding and coastal inundation. when people cannot afford to feed

themselves, when they cannot actually— themselves, when they cannot actually find a place to live, they move _ actually find a place to live, they move that _ actually find a place to live, they move. that causes a refugee crisis. it move. that causes a refugee crisis. it causes _ move. that causes a refugee crisis. it causes conflict. so actually, instead — it causes conflict. so actually, instead of— it causes conflict. so actually, instead of playing party political games, — instead of playing party political games, about who is up or down, what we need _ games, about who is up or down, what we need to— games, about who is up or down, what we need to he — games, about who is up or down, what we need to be doing is saying, let us get _ we need to be doing is saying, let us get together and mobilise one of our war— us get together and mobilise one of our war footing and that is what is needed, _ our war footing and that is what is needed, that is why the inflation reduction — needed, that is why the inflation reduction act in the united states has been — reduction act in the united states has been transformative. it is reduction act in the united states has been transformative. it is not a name in has been transformative. it is not a game in the — has been transformative. it is not a game in the sense _ has been transformative. it is not a game in the sense that _ has been transformative. it is not a game in the sense that the - has been transformative. it is not a game in the sense that the public l game in the sense that the public appetite appears to be there, doesn't it? and yet there is this slowing down. mark gardiner, would you accept that following the by—election, the government is looking afresh at parts of the net—zero platform, like the transition away from gas boilers? to a certain extent i think there are practicalities _ a certain extent i think there are practicalities that— a certain extent i think there are practicalities that need - a certain extent i think there are practicalities that need to - a certain extent i think there are practicalities that need to be - practicalities that need to be looked — practicalities that need to be looked at _ practicalities that need to be looked at and _ practicalities that need to be looked at and i _ practicalities that need to be

looked at and i am _ practicalities that need to be looked at and i am more - practicalities that need to be looked at and i am more of. practicalities that need to be i looked at and i am more of the practicalities that need to be - looked at and i am more of the alok sharma _ looked at and i am more of the alok sharma and — looked at and i am more of the alok sharma and of— looked at and i am more of the alok sharma end of the _ looked at and i am more of the alok sharma end of the spectrum - looked at and i am more of the alok sharma end of the spectrum than. sharma end of the spectrum than jacob _ sharma end of the spectrum than jacob rees-m099 _ sharma end of the spectrum than jacob rees—mogg. there - sharma end of the spectrum than jacob rees—mogg. there are - sharma end of the spectrum than. jacob rees—mogg. there are issues which _ jacob rees—mogg. there are issues which we _ jacob rees—mogg. there are issues which we do — jacob rees—mogg. there are issues which we do think— jacob rees—mogg. there are issues which we do think about _ jacob rees—mogg. there are issues which we do think about in - jacob rees—mogg. there are issues which we do think about in terms i jacob rees—mogg. there are issuesj which we do think about in terms of what _ which we do think about in terms of what actually — which we do think about in terms of what actually is _ which we do think about in terms of what actually is deliverable. - which we do think about in terms of what actually is deliverable. if- which we do think about in terms of what actually is deliverable. if you i what actually is deliverable. if you look what actually is deliverable. if you took at _ what actually is deliverable. if you took at the — what actually is deliverable. if you look at the draw _ what actually is deliverable. if you look at the draw on _ what actually is deliverable. if you look at the draw on the _ what actually is deliverable. if you look at the draw on the grid - what actually is deliverable. if you look at the draw on the grid and l what actually is deliverable. if you i look at the draw on the grid and we are using _ look at the draw on the grid and we are using about— look at the draw on the grid and we are using about 30 _ look at the draw on the grid and we are using about 30 gigawatts - look at the draw on the grid and we are using about 30 gigawatts of - are using about 30 gigawatts of power _ are using about 30 gigawatts of power at — are using about 30 gigawatts of power at 34% _ are using about 30 gigawatts of power at 34% was _ are using about 30 gigawatts of power at 34% was from - are using about 30 gigawatts of power at 34% was from gas, . are using about 30 gigawatts ofl power at 34% was from gas, 21% are using about 30 gigawatts of - power at 34% was from gas, 21% would be imported _ power at 34% was from gas, 21% would be imported from — power at 34% was from gas, 21% would be imported from france _ power at 34% was from gas, 21% would be imported from france and _ power at 34% was from gas, 21% would be imported from france and the - be imported from france and the netheriands— be imported from france and the netherlands and _ be imported from france and the netherlands and belgium - be imported from france and the netherlands and belgium and . be imported from france and the - netherlands and belgium and norway. there is— netherlands and belgium and norway. there is a _ netherlands and belgium and norway. there is a little _ netherlands and belgium and norway. there is a little bit— netherlands and belgium and norway. there is a little bit of— netherlands and belgium and norway. there is a little bit of wind _ netherlands and belgium and norway. there is a little bit of wind and - there is a little bit of wind and solar _ there is a little bit of wind and solar energy _ there is a little bit of wind and solar energy so _ there is a little bit of wind and solar energy so we _ there is a little bit of wind and solar energy so we need - there is a little bit of wind and solar energy so we need to - there is a little bit of wind and i solar energy so we need to have dispatchabie _ solar energy so we need to have dispatchable energy _ solar energy so we need to have dispatchable energy that - solar energy so we need to have dispatchable energy that is - dispatchable energy that is providing _ dispatchable energy that is providing power— dispatchable energy that is providing power that - dispatchable energy that isi providing power that people dispatchable energy that is - providing power that people want when _ providing power that people want when they— providing power that people want when they need _ providing power that people want when they need it. _ providing power that people want when they need it. so _ providing power that people want when they need it. so factories . providing power that people want i when they need it. so factories can run and _ when they need it. so factories can run and houses _ when they need it. so factories can run and houses can _ when they need it. so factories can run and houses can be _ when they need it. so factories can run and houses can be heated. - when they need it. so factories can run and houses can be heated. the problem _ run and houses can be heated. the problem is, — run and houses can be heated. the problem is, if— run and houses can be heated. the problem is, if we _ run and houses can be heated. the problem is, if we move _ run and houses can be heated. the problem is, if we move too- run and houses can be heated. the problem is, if we move too quickly| problem is, if we move too quickly in terms _ problem is, if we move too quickly in terms of— problem is, if we move too quickly in terms of reducing _ problem is, if we move too quickly in terms of reducing those - problem is, if we move too quickly| in terms of reducing those licences to explore — in terms of reducing those licences to explore oil— in terms of reducing those licences to explore oil and _ in terms of reducing those licences to explore oil and gas— in terms of reducing those licences to explore oil and gas in— in terms of reducing those licences to explore oil and gas in the - in terms of reducing those licences to explore oil and gas in the north| to explore oil and gas in the north sea, _ to explore oil and gas in the north sea. we _ to explore oil and gas in the north sea. we rely— to explore oil and gas in the north sea. we rely on _ to explore oil and gas in the north sea, we rely on other— to explore oil and gas in the north sea, we rely on other countries i to explore oil and gas in the north sea, we rely on other countries to| sea, we rely on other countries to supply _ sea, we rely on other countries to supply. we — sea, we rely on other countries to supply. we then— sea, we rely on other countries to supply. we then end _ sea, we rely on other countries to supply. we then end up _ sea, we rely on other countries to supply. we then end up in - sea, we rely on other countries to supply. we then end up in this. supply. we then end up in this difficult — supply. we then end up in this difficult problem _ supply. we then end up in this difficult problem with - supply. we then end up in this difficult problem with the - supply. we then end up in this- difficult problem with the numbers do not _ difficult problem with the numbers do not add — difficult problem with the numbers do not add uu _ difficult problem with the numbers do not add up. we _ difficult problem with the numbers do not add up. we have _ difficult problem with the numbers do not add up. we have a - difficult problem with the numbers do not add up. we have a system. difficult problem with the numbers i

do not add up. we have a system that is deliverable — 24 2a million homes with gas boilers, 32 million petrol and diesel vehicles on the road, this is going to take years, isn't it? a target of 2030 on the sale of vehicles is real is tick in that context or don't you think so? mr; is tick in that context or don't you think so? g , ., , ., think so? my question is whose fault do ou think so? my question is whose fault do you think — think so? my question is whose fault do you think it _ think so? my question is whose fault do you think it is _ think so? my question is whose fault do you think it is that _ think so? my question is whose fault do you think it is that we _ think so? my question is whose fault do you think it is that we have - think so? my question is whose fault do you think it is that we have seen l do you think it is that we have seen sluggish movement in moving away from gas and to renewables when your party banned onshore wind farms and provides subsidies for the oil and gas and aviation industry, rather than pushing money into renewables and a nationwide programme. these are things that the conservatives, who have been in government for 13

years could be doing to accelerate that transition so that the timeline wasn't so tight now. now, we are in a situation, yes, it is going to have to be fast. but it is still important it is done as your piece said n a just way, a just transition that makes sure the costs are falling on those that can most afford to pay and why green party policy would, the green party would introduce a carbon tax to help pay for the investments.— introduce a carbon tax to help pay for the investments. barry gardner. if ou for the investments. barry gardner. if you want — for the investments. barry gardner. if you want to _ for the investments. barry gardner. if you want to protect _ for the investments. barry gardner. if you want to protect families - if you want to protect families against — if you want to protect families against rising energy prices, you have _ against rising energy prices, you have to — against rising energy prices, you have to ensue late their homes and switch _ have to ensue late their homes and switch to _ have to ensue late their homes and switch to renewable power. lastjuly when _ switch to renewable power. lastjuly when the _ switch to renewable power. lastjuly when the grid was paying £440 per

megawatt hour, the new bill came in at £41— megawatt hour, the new bill came in at £41 per— megawatt hour, the new bill came in at £41 per hour. nine times cheaper. that is— at £41 per hour. nine times cheaper. that is the _ at £41 per hour. nine times cheaper. that is the difference and mark garnier— that is the difference and mark garnier was in the committee... not 'ust garnier was in the committee... not just that _ garnier was in the committee... not just that and — garnier was in the committee... not just that and mark garnier was with me in— just that and mark garnier was with me in committee when chris stark came _ me in committee when chris stark came to _ me in committee when chris stark came to us — me in committee when chris stark came to us last week and said the government missed an opportunity to move _ government missed an opportunity to move faster— government missed an opportunity to move faster on home insulation and on actually— move faster on home insulation and on actually decarbonizing our homes. instead _ on actually decarbonizing our homes. instead of— on actually decarbonizing our homes. instead of playing a blame game, let's instead of playing a blame game, iet'sjust — instead of playing a blame game, let'sjust get on instead of playing a blame game, let's just get on and instead of playing a blame game, let'sjust get on and do it. because we have _ let'sjust get on and do it. because we have got a huge amount to do. if we have got a huge amount to do. if we look— we have got a huge amount to do. if we took at _ we have got a huge amount to do. if we look at what the committee on climate _ we look at what the committee on climate change said and what the government's own targets are, they say that— government's own targets are, they say that by— government's own targets are, they say that by 2025, one and a half million — say that by 2025, one and a half million homes need to be being fitted _ million homes need to be being fitted. last year, it was 204 thousand _ fitted. last year, it was 204 thousand. that was it. we have got

to increase — thousand. that was it. we have got to increase that seven and a half times _ to increase that seven and a half times. it— to increase that seven and a half times. . to increase that seven and a half times. , . .,, to increase that seven and a half times. , _,, ., to increase that seven and a half times. , . ., ., ., to increase that seven and a half times. , ., ., ., ., times. it is the cost for a lot of eo - le. times. it is the cost for a lot of people- you — times. it is the cost for a lot of people. you have _ times. it is the cost for a lot of people. you have heard - times. it is the cost for a lot of people. you have heard from | times. it is the cost for a lot of - people. you have heard from carla and barry there, incumbent for as long as you have been as a government, and i think alok sharma would be disappointed, you mentioned you were on his side of the argument, would you accept this is a disastrous time to be taking the foot off the gas in the speed of net zero. . 'ii if ~ foot off the gas in the speed of net zero. , ':: in . ., ., foot off the gas in the speed of net zero. , ':: 1m . ., ., ., ., zero. yes, 100%. we have got to go for net zero. yes, 10096. we have got to go for net zero _ zero. yes, 10096. we have got to go for net zero row _ zero. yes, 10096. we have got to go for net zero row by _ zero. yes, 10096. we have got to go for net zero row by 2050 _ zero. yes, 10096. we have got to go for net zero row by 2050 and - zero. yes, 10096. we have got to go for net zero row by 2050 and no - zero. yes, 10096. we have got to go for net zero row by 2050 and no nol for net zero row by 2050 and no no internal combustion engines. but there are challenges that we face and carla made an important point about onshore wind farms, it is one of interesting electoral facts of life, carla is lucky enough to be a

representative in bristol, that is lovely, but it is a city, if you're an mp in upland moorlands where you have a nice constant wind you will find it difficult to be re—elected if you propose to your constituents that you're going to put in a thousand wind farms.- that you're going to put in a thousand wind farms. that is why we need a war footing. _ thousand wind farms. that is why we need a war footing. we _ thousand wind farms. that is why we need a war footing. we have - thousand wind farms. that is why we need a war footing. we have to - need a war footing. we have to mobilise — need a war footing. we have to mobilise. in war we would not allow this to _ mobilise. in war we would not allow this to happen and in 25 years' time. — this to happen and in 25 years' time, people will turn to politician and say. _ time, people will turn to politician and say, why didn't you stop it while — and say, why didn't you stop it while you _ and say, why didn't you stop it while you still had time. people like you — while you still had time. people like you and me won't be able to look— like you and me won't be able to took them — like you and me won't be able to look them in the face, unless we act now _ look them in the face, unless we act now. . ~' look them in the face, unless we act now. . ~ , ., y look them in the face, unless we act now. . ~ i. , . at 4.17am on the 6th of february a 7.8 magnitude earthquake rocked turkey. that day, 50,000 people were killed. but what's been barely reported is that google was operating an earthquake early warning system

in the country. the company claims it sent out millions of warnings before the quake hit. but bbc teams in turkey and silicon valley can't find evidence that this warning was widely received by people in the earthquake zone. in a special report for bbc newsnight, here 5 anna foster in turkey and james clayton in san francisco. it was one of the most powerful quakes turkey had ever seen. more than 50,000 people died. the scale of the destruction was almost impossible to comprehend. back in february, i was reporting on the ground in the hours and days and weeks afterwards, hearing people's stories. people who'd lost notjust relatives, but entire families. millions were jolted awake at 4.17am, when

the first earthquake hit. many were killed where their bodies were found — still in their beds. another quake hours later brought fresh damage. but should advanced new technology have given people more time to escape a system which was already supposed to be working successfully? here in california, google has spent years creating an earthquake warning system designed to alert people before an earthquake strikes. it works on any android phone. that's about 80% of all of the phones in turkey. and this is google's explainer on how it works. android phones have these tiny accelerometers built into them, which can sense earthquakes. people will now be able to have their phones become part of this network of mini—seismometers looking for earthquakes around the world. we call this the android earthquake alerts system.

when the phone detects an earthquake, it sends a message back to google's servers. when enough phones do this, google can pinpoint the epicenter and send out an earthquake warning. this is what millions of people in turkey, in theory, got before the earthquake struck. and so you'll hear it go. it looks like this and it says drop, cover and hold. phone chimes. so it's pretty loud. it's pretty loud. this is micah berman, the product manager for the system at google. he explains how earthquakes move through the ground relatively slowly compared to a message near instantly reaching your phone. so the farther you are from the epicenter of the earthquake, the more warning time we're able to give you generally because we've detected it at the epicenter. and if you're farther away, we're racing at the speed of light and the speed of motion through the ground, the speed of light wins by more and more and more the farther you get away from the epicentre of the earthquake.

so sometimes it might be a second or a fraction of a second. sometimes it might be 20 or 30 seconds, sometimes it might be 50 or 60 seconds. it depends on all of those factors together, how much warning we're able to give you. could this save lives? i mean, has it saved lives? i certainly hope so. our intent is to be able to give users as much warning as we possibly can to help them protect themselves, theirfamilies, their loved ones. so this is a core service of android. it was two or three in the morning. i was sound asleep. this is a google advert about the system. a man talks of the worries of living in an earthquake zone and the comfort of having the service. the notification said there was an earthquake. it said how big it was and how far it was. it's one less thing i have to worry about. here's the crucial thing. it works automatically on any android phone. you don't need to turn it on. if your phone was on do not disturb, it would override that? exactly the same behavior that you just heard, no matter

what state your phone is in. you should get that warning? yes. the company claims that is exactly what happened in turkey. millions of people received a warning. so our system did activate for both of the major events in turkey, as well as for a number of aftershocks. i was really puzzled by that claim because i was here on the ground in turkey in the hours and the days and the weeks after the earthquake. and nobody had ever mentioned in any interview with me receiving an alert before the earthquake. so we decided to go to three cities that had been impacted. adana, osmaniye and iskenderun. they're each between 70 and 150 kilometers from the epicenter. kilometers from the epicentre. so enough of a distance away to get a warning. and i simply asked people whether they'd received an alert. everyone you're about to hear from has an android phone. so when the earthquake happened, the first one that happened in the night, did you get this alert on your phone at the time of the

earthquake when you were sleeping? no. and what about... so it looked like that and it makes a sound. phone chimes. no, no, no. like this? phone chimes. no, no. allegan lost his grandmother when the hospital building she was being treated in collapsed. did your android phone, did it send you an image, a warning? did it make a sound? did it send you any kind of alert at 4.17am that that earthquake was starting? no. nothing? nothing. right after the earthquake, i went to google to check the magnitude. so this came up on google. but your screenshot is 4.32am. 4.32am, yeah. so this was long after the earthquake happened. yeah. we did find a few people who had

heard it before, but not for the first major earthquake. sounds like this. one time... yeah. and then in the peak... the big earthquake, nothing? 0k. we spoke to dozens of people on the streets. most people hadn't even heard of google's system. no, no. no? in one of iskenderun's tented communities, where displaced people are still living in the intense heat, it was the same story. this woman lost 25 members of herfamily. she showed me tattoos of some of their names, including her sister and nephews.

so you didn't receive any alert? nothing on your phone? in all three cities, despite our attempts, we didn't find one person — not one — who got a warning for the first earthquake. despite putting this evidence to google, the company was insistent that it had worked. how sure are you that firstly, it did fire, and secondly, that it actually got to people during this earthquake? i'm as sure as we can be that the system activated and that we did send alerts. it's possible that given all of the massive impact of the first event, that this just

quietly happened in the background while users were really paying attention to lots of other things. at the end of the day, i think that's probably the most likely explanation, is that users were focused on something else and might not even have noticed if they got the alert. like i say, in every event... all i can say, though, is that the team has just talked to dozens and dozens of people. if they had got advanced warning of this earthquake, you would have expected people to have remembered this. so i guess that's the question i have i have for you. i unfortunately have the same question. what could the reason be? largely the theories are what i've hypothesised with you today, but these are all theories. another oddity is the lack of social media response to the alert. usually when there's an earthquake, and recent ones in pakistan, there was one in indonesia recently that affected malaysia. social media sort of lights up with all of these comments saying, "i just got an alert". the thing that was unusual about turkey is that that didn't happen. why do you think that was the case?

you know, my guess is as good as anyone's. i don't have any particular insight into why, but i don't have a resounding answer for, i guess, why we haven't seen more reaction on social media to that particular event. after this interview, google compiled a list of 13 social media posts that they'd found trawling turkish and english social media platforms and gave them to the bbc. google said they hadn't contacted these people, so we did our own research and tracked them down to speak to them. take this man, who tweeted that he'd got a warning. we messaged him, but he didn't respond. but i did manage, through his social media posts, to find out what gym he worked at, and by contacting him there, he agreed to be interviewed. translation: around 4am - in the morning, when the quake hit, when i stood up, my mom, my dad and my sister were all awake. my sister had crouched down in fear.

she couldn't even move. afterwards, i turned my phone off do not disturb. but there was no warning, no buzzing or audio warning came before the first quake. ridvan's tweet was actually referring to a later earthquake. the same goes for almost all of the others. two of the social media posts did claim to be referring to the first earthquake. one person didn't message us back, despite multiple attempts to contact them. another wrote a long account about how they did get a warning a few seconds before the first earthquake. however, they wouldn't give us their name and couldn't be certain of their memory of events. google's early warning service is in dozens of countries, and you could argue that an imperfect system is better than none at all. however, there are alternatives. here in california, earthquakes are detected with seismometers placed near faults in the ground. this is one we recently visited. japan has a similar system.

sirens sound. and in mexico there are public sirens. you can hear them here as people file into the streets away from buildings during a quake in 2017. google says that its system is supplemental, that it's not a replacement for a government—run service, but it's not quite as simple as that. harold tobin is a professor of earth sciences and director of the pacific northwest seismic network. these systems are extremely new. they're at the cutting edge of what's possible. so google gives us a lot of information that sometimes is really great for our convenience. this is not about inconveniences. this is really about something that is a matter of life and death. and one of the questions it raises is, is there potential that in some country, many countries potentially around the world, if google says they're delivering this service, then there will be less likelihood that the civil authorities in that country would spend the money to do an earthquake early warning system when, in fact, maybe there should be one.

it's essential then to understand how well these systems work. have you spoken to anyone who got it? i have not, no. though i don't speak turkish and, you know, turkey... so has google spoken to anyone? i don't know. any more data you can share with us about how how it fired on that first earthquake, we would really love. that would be great. google didn't share any of their data with the bbc, though. though it did send this statement after the interview. "during a devastating earthquake event, numerous factors can affect whether users receive, notice or act on a supplemental alert, including specific characteristics of the earthquake and the availability of internet connectivity." i feel that if you are delivering an essential sort of life safety, public safety piece of information, then you have a responsibility to be transparent about how it works and how well it works. this is what we're talking about.

we're not talking about an anecdote of it's popped up here and there. these are intended as blanket warning systems. that's the whole point. we can't be sure that no one got this alert, but we can be sure that many people didn't. there was no blanket warning — a warning that could have saved lives. anna a n na foster anna foster and james clayton reporting. former president donald trump took to social media today. an indictment on charges relating to the january 6th insurrection was thought to be imminent, so he tweeted that he did nothing wrong and that "an indictment of me would only further destroy our country". in the event those charges did not materialise today, with some observers now predicting they could come tomorrow. to give us an update on this, we're joined now by adam klasfeld, senior legal correspondent

of the messenger. thank you very much forjoining us. some viewers know that mr trump faces all kinds of different cases and legaljeopardy is so could you remind us what the charges were that we were expecting today? right remind us what the charges were that we were expecting today?— we were expecting today? right now, former president _ we were expecting today? right now, former president trump _ we were expecting today? right now, former president trump is _ we were expecting today? right now, former president trump is facing - former president trump is facing potential charges related to the events of january the 6th and the lead up to that in the wake of the 2020 election and his attempts to overturn it, and according to his own truth social account he says he received a target letter and according to many reports believe that the statutes cited in that target letter include obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the united states and a reconstruction error law that punishes threats to civil rights,

basically intended to deter the ku klux klan from interfering with the rights of free men and women after the civil war. those were some of the civil war. those were some of the statutes we were looking at, whether any of those will be charged will be a matter for the grand jury and it could be other statutes on prosecutors' reader as well and we are waiting to see if one returns. he said he sent his lawyers to talk to the prosecutors today. do you think that might have had any effect? is that we did not the indictment today? the effect? is that we did not the indictment today?— effect? is that we did not the indictment today? the only people who know what _ indictment today? the only people who know what happened - indictment today? the only people who know what happened in - indictment today? the only people who know what happened in that l indictment today? the only people - who know what happened in that room with prosecutors by the parties involved but typically it is very routine that prosecutors speak to the defence attorneys and usually when it gets to that point, as former president trump posted on his own social media account, he was

presented with the target letter, a very dramatic measure informing him that he is likely to be criminally indicted. i would that he is likely to be criminally indicted. iwould hesitate that he is likely to be criminally indicted. i would hesitate to make any assumption that the fact that some people speculated that today was the day and in was no indictment means that the lawyers talk them out of it or anything like that, sometimes this process takes time. let's not get hung up on whether or not it was going to happen today or tomorrow but broadly speaking, is a tension between the judicial timescale and the electoral one here? ~ , ,., , timescale and the electoral one here? absolutely. because remember, earlier this month, _ here? absolutely. because remember, earlier this month, in _ here? absolutely. because remember, earlier this month, in the _ here? absolutely. because remember, earlier this month, in the florida - earlier this month, in the florida case involving the class five documents, found in maralago, the crux of the hearing was trump's

lawyers tried to delay the proceedings until after the election. they failed in that effort and his only point d said that a provisional trial date in that case work made the 20th of next year so several months earlier than his lawyers had requested and with every passing day that we don't have an indictment, we have every reason to believe, and sources close to trump's legal team say that they are expecting to try to push this case until for a trial until after the election and every day the indictment does not return is one where they will try to make that with even greater force.- where they will try to make that with even greater force. thank you very much- — it's 70 years to the day since the korean war ceasefire came into force. technically, the war hasn't ended, and the north korean nuclear programme ensures that the situation there is never far

from the headlines. but the fact that british soldiers fought in korea, with losses almost as high as in the decades long northern ireland campaign, remains unknown to many. the memory of that campaign still lives with a good many survivors and today dozens of them paraded in london. earlier mike mogeridge came in to talk to us. the armistice was marked today by a parade of korean war veterans, now mostly in their 905.. mike mogeridge feels it's a conflict that was never really understood back home. what the british legion did today was absolutely wonderful. i mean, for the first time, our national body has actually shown recognition of — we've had all sorts of 50 years celebrations apart from us and the korean embassy, nobody�*s shown any interest, really, but for the british legion to do it now was really something i think it's subtle it is a forgotten war,

but i think it's not really... what it was, it was a war that there was no understanding of it in the first place. if it had been known and then forgotten, it's a forgotten war. to me, peoplejust didn't know about it. and when you think my regiment was over 40 guys there, in a period of three years, the british army lost more soldiers than iraq, afghanistan and the falklands put together. sent into battle in 1953, he learnt the hard realities of fighting the north koreans and chinese. most of the korean war was fought at night, because during the day we just had sentries out to watch the chinese when attacking. so at night everything happened. if the chinese were going to attack, they came at night. and a lot of our work was patrols. both sides wanted to control no man's land. so infantry soldiers were every

night going out on patrols in to no man's land and try and dominate.