 COP26 climate talks will be a key moment to limit catastrophic climate change. And because they're held in Glasgow, the UK government has an extra large responsibility to make sure they go to plan. Alok Sharma is the Tory minister in charge. And this weekend, he gave an interview to the observer in the interview. Sharma told the paper that the consequences of failure of COP26 would be catastrophic. He said, I don't think there's any other word for it. You're seeing on a daily basis what is happening across the world. Last year was the hottest on record, the last decade, the hottest decade on record. On the eve of the release of the latest IPCC report, which was when he was speaking, Sharma said, this is going to be the starkest warning yet that human behavior is alarmingly accelerating global warming. And this is why COP26 has to be the moment we get this right. We can't afford to wait two years, five years, 10 years. This is the moment. I don't think we're out of time, but I think we're getting dangerously close to when we might be out of time. We will see from the IPCC a very, very clear warning that unless we act now, we will unfortunately be out of time. These are all very strong words from the minister who has been put in charge of COP26. They're good to hear. This is what you would want a minister in charge of COP26 to be saying. There is a problem with Alok Sharma though, and it was evident in that interview. The position he is putting forward for the government is completely incoherent. The observer headline, credit to the headline writers, made this clear. So you can see here we're on the brink of catastrophe warns Tory climate chief. COP26 meeting his last chance says Alok Sharma as he backs UK's plan for new oil and gas fields. Yes, while Sharma believes climate change could be catastrophic, he also backs UK plans to have new fossil fuel projects. This is the last thing you should be doing if you're serious about climate change. The defence offered by Alok Sharma isn't particularly persuasive. So this is what he said on the plan to open new oil fields in the North Sea. He said future fossil fuel licenses are going to have to adhere to the fact that we have committed to go to net zero by 2050 in legislation. There will be a climate check on any licenses. We must act now to avoid catastrophe. Oh, but not quite yet. We're still going to allow this new oil field. Now, it's controversial to say new oil field. I mean, it is a new oil field, but the government's excuse they're opt out is to say, oh, no, this isn't a new oil field. This is an extension of an existing one. And they say because it's an extension of an existing one, it doesn't have to meet the supposedly stringent requirements that the government have set for new oil fields. So it's going ahead. Anyway, also important to know it's not just lefties like us at Navarra Media who are opposing this, the international energy agencies, that's the global energy watchdog has said that all fossil fuel exploration and development must cease this year to have a chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. We've got a government who is saying we need to take climate change seriously. Otherwise, we're facing catastrophe. Also, we are going to allow a new oil field to be developed in the North Sea. The ongoing role and response of the UK and other countries in Europe and North America to climate breakdown is, has been the biggest scandal of the 20th and the 21st century. And the issue here is not a deficit of scientific knowledge. The IPCC told us in 2018 that we have 12 years to limit climate catastrophe, which I think is probably quite a generous number. And we are a quarter of the way through those 12 years now. And what do we have to show for it? Ken Sarawiwa knew in the 1990s that the lack of political action and the ongoing chokehold that the fossil fuel industry has over our political processes is an urgent emergency. So the issue isn't lack of reports. It's not a lack of understanding. It's a deficit of political strength and it's a deficit of political will. And that is what we see by the kind of giving with one hand and taking with the other that we're seeing with Alok Sharma. And what he's giving is very minute. What he's taking is very, very considerable. And that deficit of political strength is in the face of, you know, it doesn't just exist because there's a kind of cozy relationship between the fossil fuel industry and our political classes. But it's because there is an overall investment in the broader system in which the fossil fuel industry exists. So things like our insurance company system, our insurance systems, our financial systems, even us, the state actors within the UK government that all facilitate the existence of a fossil fuel industry and the fossil fuel economy, as well as investment in the broader economic system that sort of demands growth at all and any costs, you know, you can't even slow down long enough to consider what it could mean to transition to a different energy system or to transition to a more sustainable way of living. And that is the contradiction that ultimately lies at the heart of existing state power. And it's not just in the UK, it's across Europe, it's in North America. And it's why within our current political system, we're going to keep losing the very precious years that we have left in order to take the necessary and urgent action. Because we all know that the route out of climate breakdown and not just the route out, because I think sometimes we are kind of, we're making a mistake when we frame this as, you know, fighting climate change or sort of like preventing climate change. Climate change is already underway. It's about mitigating the impact that, you know, and many ways are already underway, but also mitigating against worsening those impacts. That requires action that strikes ultimately the very heart of capitalism. It requires not only ending the fossil fuel industry, but it also requires things like abolishing intellectual property regimes that, you know, stop us from widely sharing technologies that can lead us to a more sustainable future. It requires overhauling our food and agricultural system. It requires transforming our, how we relate to land, you know, how we, how we conceptualize our relationship to land and our political classes, even if they might consider themselves to be, you know, invested in the environment because of the, how embedded they are in reproducing those broader systems. That is why when we have these incredibly profound and urgent moments such as this IPCC report, we are met with it. It's met with nonsense like, you know, rinse your plates before you put them in the dishwasher. Or what I think is even more absurd, which is Alec Sharma saying, oh, it's okay that we're cushioning new fossil fuel projects because we're having climate checks on them. Like how can you put a climate check on a fossil fuel project? But, you know, this is kind of going to be this sort of them virtue signalling. And I think it's funny because virtue signalling is often whenever virtue signalling is used, it's normally done in a very meaningless way. But it's actually the only way that you can accurately describe the UK government's approach to climate breakdown because it's signalling that there's an issue as if all that is at stake is, you know, ticking the box on the political sound by checklist. And then behind closed doors, literally making the problem worse and not only making it worse by commissioning new fossil fuel projects within the UK, but making it worse by enabling the financial and political infrastructure that makes the fossil fuel industry possible, much of which is located within the UK. So even if the fossil fuel projects themselves aren't necessarily taking place within the UK, which of course we know they still are, the decisions and the political ability and the financial ability to do so is taking place on UK land and within UK jurisdiction.