‘This is a foolish argument’: John Humphrys accused of ‘pettifogging’ on climate change by Labour’s Barry Gardiner “Can I just say John, this is really a very foolish argument”

BBC Radio 4 Presenter John Humphrys was accused of pursuing a ‘foolish argument’ by Labour’s Barry Gardiner in an interview where he appeared to fumble key facts on climate change.

The interview got off to a bad start as Mr Humphrys confused the difference between degrees and percentages as he summarised a new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The report, released on Monday, stressed the dire need to restrict global temperatures to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels saying the world had just 11 years before changes would be irreversible.

The i politics newsletter cut through the noise Email address is invalid Email address is invalid Thank you for subscribing! Sorry, there was a problem with your subscription.

Mr Gardiner, who is Labour’s shadow minister for international trade, called on the UK to reduce net emissions to zero by 2050 and said the Labour Party would want to see a 60 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030.

Mr Humphrys responded: “You’d be building a vast number of wind turbines, nearly double the amount at the moment.”

Subsidies

When Mr Gardiner tried to point out the way that subsidies largely function, the BBC presenter said: “Well it’s always, in the end, public money because it’s subsidised isn’t it?”

The Labour frontbencher replied: “Of course, that’s not true if you look at subsidies to fossil fuels…” to which Mr Humphrys asked: “You’re not suggesting that wind has not been subsidised massively over the years?”

Mr Gardiner said: “What I am suggesting, if you look at the subsidies to fossil fuels, both nationally and globally, you will see they are far, far greater than the subsidies to renewables. Can I just say John, this is really a very foolish argument, to talk about subsidies and how much is going to cost.”

“Not if you’re a taxpayer it isn’t,” Humphrys said.

Mr Gardiner hit back: “If you screw up the global ecosystem to such an extent, that we see the reductions in productive agricultural land, the refugee crisis that would be caused by inundation and the displacement of peoples, the potential conflict that would be caused – and you look at the cost to the global economy of all of that.

“Then to be pettifogging about what our comparatively small costs in relation to the huge loss to the global economy that would result from exceeding these thresholds that the IPCC has very carefully, very painstakingly set out, then it would be a very foolish thing. You can’t weigh up in one hand of the scale a gold bullion bar and in another hand the global ecosystem.”

Labour’s plan

As Mr Gardiner listed Labour’s plans for the energy system, Mr Humphrys asked: “What’s it all going to cost?” to which Gardiner replied: “that’s where you weren’t listening earlier because….”

“Yes I was listening earlier but you wouldn’t give me a figure,” Mr Humphrys said as the pair rowed.

Subsidies for renewables are largely paid for by energy companies who mostly pass the cost on to consumers. This makes up a proportion of domestic energy bills. Renewable subsidies, however, receive an undue amount of attention. A 2017 report found G20 governments spend nearly 4 times as much on subsidies for fossil fuels than they do on clean energy sources.

A report by the New Climate Economy said the economic benefits of tackling climate change could add $26 trillion to the global economy by 2030.

Mr Gardiner said: “Sorry, it doesn’t cost the government, it is business that does these things, it’s investors that put the money into these things and what you want is a figure that government would spend, not a figure of what it would cost.

“So, therefore, you really need to see this as an opportunity. We have $26 trillion boost to the global economy, we are the best country in the world to take advantage of that and you are pettifogging over pennies.”

A spokesperson for the Today Programme said: “The interview questioned how Labour would fund their proposals surrounding climate change and how they planned to reach the latest proposed targets. At no point did John Humphrys challenge or undermine the suggestion that action was needed and Today dedicated a significant portion of the programme, including the 08:10 interview, exploring the story whilst hearing from a range of voices about the need for action and what form that might take.”

The BBC issued its staff with updated guidelines on reporting on climate change after criticism of its coverage on the issue for unduly elevating the views of climate change sceptics whose views are rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community.