20111203_R4

Source: BBC Radio 4: Today Programme

URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9654000/9654174.stm

Date: 03/12/2011

Event: John Prescott describes a "conspiracy against the poor" at the climate talks

Attribution: BBC Radio 4

People:

• John Humphrys: Presenter, BBC Radio 4: Today Programme
• John Prescott: Former UK Deputy Prime Minister, Council of Europe's rapporteur on climate change

John Humphrys: It may have escaped your attention, but the latest big international conference on climate change is under way in South Africa. If it's not been attracting much attention, it may because the world has its mind on other things, or it may be that no-one's expecting very much to come out of it, if anything. John Prescott - Lord Prescott - is there. When he was Environment Secretary he led the British delegation at the Kyoto talks, which reached an agreement that set this whole process in train. I spoke to him earlier this morning, and suggested to him that Kyoto had not delivered on its promise.

John Prescott: Oh, it's not as much as we had hoped. Of course, it was only designed to about 40 odd countries, the richest, industrial ones. Quite a number of them achieved their Kyoto target. Britain, of course, has achieved it twice - the level that was set for us at Kyoto, about 12%, we got 25%. So there has been a great deal, but now we're talking about 192 countries, how do you get consensus? How do you bring them together, on getting a global solution to a global problem? I'm afraid we've got a kind of conspiracy over here in Durban now, as we had at Kyoto, the rich countries, or particularly the interests of the people like the oil and the steam industry [could he have meant to say "coal industry, here? Not sure, but it does sound like "steam industry"], getting together now to try and defeat any Kyoto II agreement.

John Humphrys: Well, it isn't just them, is it. It's the United States that's never signed up, as well.

John Prescott: Well, the United States has got a cheek, hasn't it. It never even signed up for it. I mean, Bush obviously didn't agree with it. Obama says he does, but can't do anything about it, and is now leading the attack, with Canada, and two statements they've made to the conference here in Durban - they've made the statements that they don't [?] want a Kyoto II. I think Canada did sign it, have done nothing about implementing it, and is now saying it was the greatest blunder that Canada signed up to. Now these are the richest ten - you know, the ten richest countries in the world, control well over a third, well over 50% of the wealth of the country [?] and are the great emitters, now getting together in a conspiracy to kick the teeth in, of the developing countries, and wanting to defeat a Kyoto II. Absolute scandalous.

John Humphrys: Well, it may be that the argument of those who say climate change is a myth, or a con, or a hoax, or whatever you want to call it - it may be that that argument is beginning to hold sway, and that politicians - many politicians - are now saying "Why risk our popularity on this particular issue?"

John Prescott: This isn't about popularity, and I think some of them might think that it's politically advantageous to give an anti line [?]. The science is absolutely clear and there's only a few that are mumbling [?] against it, so I don't think there's a real argument on the science side. There are difficulties about the economy, which we face at the moment, but the difficulties that come from climate change will make this financial problem we've got on the global scene like a tea party. We do have to do something. For the rich countries that, frankly, poisoned the world on CO2 in their great prosperity they've got at the moment, to be denying a chance to the developing countries that have some progress to reduce poverty. And the real worry for me is the timetable for Kyoto II, and they're picking their moment now, ends in 2012, and what they want to do is say "Don't let's have a Kyoto II, let it wither on the vine". And that's why I came up with the proposal through the Council of Europe, as a rapporteur there, to actually stop the clock. You remember the Europeans, when they had the negotiations -

John Humphrys: I do indeed.

John Prescott: - in the EU. If they hadn't completed the negotiations, and we haven't here, you then stop the clock and continue. My proposal is that we stop the clock on the Kyoto principles at the moment, go on, say, probably to 2015, '16, which was partly agreed at Cancun, and that we'll see the completed [?] of the negotiations, the provision of the money, which is absolutely crucial, and then we can look at where we are in 2015, '16, but retaining the Kyoto principles. They're trying to defeat the Kyoto principles, which is about common problems but differential responsibilities.

John Humphrys: The problem is, though, if you stop the clock, you can't be sure that at the end of it, when you re-start it, the argument won't have gone even more in the wrong direction, from your point of view.

John Prescott: Yes, I think you're absolutely right about that, John. My argument is: well, let's see where we are then. But if you try and finish it next year in 2012 - and that's why Durban is so important - and the global organisation that has called this meeting here, is to bring the legislators together to put the pressure on the parliaments and the governments to make sure we don't take the easier option being provided for us by the Americans and the Canadians - is to stop the Kyoto II agreement. And so, to that extent, it's absolutely critical - let's have a reassessment so that by 2015. But if you don't finish in time for the ending of Kyoto II, which is next year, 2012, then, you know, it will actually wither on the vine, and that's what Canada and America want, and one or two other rich countries. It's a conspiracy against the poor, it's appalling. I'm ashamed of such countries not recognising their responsibilities.

John Humphrys: John Prescott, many thanks.