Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
It's really important that Ed hears from you
the most important messages that he is taking
to the most important negotiation, I genuinely think,
since the end of the second world war, arguably ever.
This is it, guys.
This march had tens of thousands of people in London,
thousands of people across the country.
Believe it or not,
it had Peter Mandelson and Malcolm Tucker both on this march.
(laughter)
An amazing combination.
I think we should just give a massive round of applause
to you and to all of the people who've organised this march today,
because I think it's an absolutely brilliant signal
of determination and commitment.
(man) The Kyoto protocol is well known as being
the strongest legally binding treaty on climate change
that we have so far.
Can you assure us that you will not sacrifice Kyoto
for an agreement on climate change that's weaker?
I'm really pleased you asked me this question.
We are absolutely clear about this.
We cannot replace one legal treaty, even though it was a flawed treaty
in the sense that it was only a partial treaty,
with simply a political agreement
which doesn't then become a legal treaty.
And I understand the worries of developing countries about this.
I think my point to developing countries is,
let's not settle for second best,
which is just a partial Kyoto mark two.
We need a comprehensive legal treaty covering everyone
because that's the only thing we're gonna have to tackle the problem.
I think where I'm sympathetic to developing countries' view
is they don't want the Kyoto process
to be declared at an end until we have the new legal treaty
because they don't want the possibility
of Kyoto part two being sacrificed
before we're sure we've got a legal treaty.
I think that is absolutely legitimate
and if I were in their position I would say that.
Frankly we're not going to do that.
We absolutely want to build on Kyoto.
Part of the problem a month ago when people were talking about
a political agreement, not a legal treaty,
was people thought, "Does that mean we're dumping Kyoto?"
Absolutely not. In talks in Copenhagen earlier this week
I was very, very clear about that.
It's also all of our jobs, starting with people like me,
to counter the completely mad scepticism
that we've seen in the last few days.
There are people who are trying to wreck the talks, frankly,
by somehow claiming the science is in doubt.
I happened to walk with a climate scientist
from the British Antarctic Survey today.
I just ran into her on the march.
The scientists are bemused, frankly,
by some of the media coverage that somehow this is in doubt,
because they are in no doubt about the reality of it.
And I think that is a really important case that we have to make.
(man #2) I just want to ask - as I expect you know,
James Hansen, the leading American climate scientist,
is strongly opposed to the carbon emission cap-and-trade schemes
and is on record as saying that he thinks it would be better
if the Copenhagen process failed
than such a scheme is legitimised.
His basic argument is that it allows the developed countries
to get away with business as usual
by giving money to carbon offsets in developing countries
without actually making any significant changes themselves.
What's your view on that?
I think cap and trade...
Some people don't like cap and trade and carbon trading.
I don't think carbon trading on its own
can be an answer to the problem of climate change.
That's why I think domestic action is so important.
On the other hand I was pretty depressed by James Hansen,
because I think saying, "Let's have Copenhagen fail and start again,"
is an incredibly futile recipe for what we need.
The fact is we have moved the world quite a long way
in relation to Copenhagen. The world is now watching,
which it's never done on climate change quite in this way.
And we need to convert it into something meaningful, in my view.
(woman) I'm wondering, if we are fortunate enough
to have a good outcome from Copenhagen,
what you're going to be doing behind the scenes
to help people at a local scale not be hampered by national policies.
I actually think we've got to have carbon budgets for local councils
like we have for national governments.
What I can't do is micro-manage the bus service in Swindon,
because that's kind of problematic too.
But on the other hand... Much as I would like to.
On the other hand, what we've got to do is to have local councils
that have to work within a carbon framework, like central government.
John Denham is a pioneer in this
and I think he's completely right to do so.
Now, I think we are all daunted by how far we have to travel
and how far we have to go. I for one am not underestimating that.
I don't say that it is easy
and I don't say that we are in any sense "there"
because, not just between now and Copenhagen but afterwards,
we have got a very, very long way to go.
But if my fear a year ago,
when Graham and I were talking about this with others in this room,
was, are we going to get the popular mobilisation that we need,
how are we going to get other countries on board,
are people really going to step up to the plate on this?
I don't say we're there for Copenhagen at all,
but I think there has been
a big transformation across the world on this.
And... there are just interesting straws in the wind.
The Canadian prime minister says that he's going to Copenhagen
because a hundred other leaders have said they're going to Copenhagen.
There was an NGO demand three months ago that leaders went to Copenhagen
and at the time it was seen as relatively controversial.
Now it's seen as, how could you possibly not go to Copenhagen?
And yesterday we saw with President Obama, having said a week ago
he's going at the beginning, he's now going at the end.
If ever there was a sign that popular pressure is paying off,
this is it.
I say keep up the pressure on me and on us in the next two weeks -
not just in the next two weeks, but beyond that.
And the other thing I would say is I will do my damnedest
to get the best possible agreement we can at Copenhagen.
Thanks.